chip EV vs $EV

I've been thinking of buying SNGPT and was having a muck around with the figures when I came across this 'anomaly'(?)

4 Players

Hero has TT in SB
PS blinds 200/400 ante25
all stacks equal

BB 3375
Hero 3375
Villain 3375
CO 3375

villain will push range 66+,ATs+,

The figures returned:

Chip EV
%win 53.4 EVwin 53.3%/T7200 EVlose 0.0%/T0

EVfold 23.3%/T3150
EVcall 28.5%/T3842
EVDiff +5.1%/T691.7

From this point of view it seems a clear call

$EV
%win 53.4% EVwin 39.3%/$88 EVlose 0.0%/$0

EVfold 24.0%/$54.03
EVcall 20.9%/$47.12
EVDiff -3.1%/-$6.91

This seems a clear fold.

Can anyone explain the discrepancy ? Why ? and which figure then should one follow ?

[applejuicekid]

The reason these are different is because of the payout structure. If you lose you bust out fourth. If you double up you aren't even getting 50% of the prize pool everytime. So while calling may net you more chips it won't get you more money. This is a basic principle of ICM which is a popular chip model on this board. More info can be found here. If you want to maximize your ev in sit n gos you the $EV.

[citanul]

to expand just a touch, if a hand were played in a vacuum, in a cash game, chip ev = $ ev, as the chips are dollars. sngs are not cash games and are not hands played in a vacuum.

icm imposes a $ evaluation of chip stacks given states of the game. specifically the basic model imposes a structure based on the number of people left and their stacks.

so, to take a degenerate sort of case, if you had the following cases:

blinds = small
4 handed, (x is a large number)
player 1: x chips total
player 2: x chips total
player 3: x chips total
you: 1 chip behind, in the bb

all other players are all in to you, and you have aces.

in a cash game this is a trivial call, as AA is good.

in a tournament game, it's an easy fold, as you will likely place itm and most likely 2nd by folding in this spot, and you will in the times you don't lose when you do call only have a few chips.

the things like the particular discrepancy you found are just slightly less obvious cases of the same thing.

the overall point is that by being in the game you have an equity in the game. in all all-in confrontations, you have a non-insignificant chance of busting, against most ranges of your hands, and in many spots the edge that you might have on your opponent in terms of chip ev is not large enough to compensate for the large amount of equity you give up (all of it) in the games where you lose.

c

Thanks, it all comes clear. Much appreciated.

You might also look at my (and others') posts at Theoretical problem about coinflips

[ QUOTE ]
You might also look at my (and others') posts at Theoretical problem about coinflips

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good thread link, and it's not even close!