Keeping the Bubble Alive to gain $EV

[GtrHtr]

Your point on the Scuba post was that by giving up 2% EV or any EV was wrong. My point is that stealing the blinds from 2d or even 3d stack by keeping shorty in the game is worth more than 10% EV. Also, if you read his words in that paragraph, he starts out by saying "in theory".

[pokerlaw]

I still push here - I dont want any shorty making a comeback on me or anything. if the hand were junk instead of 66, then fold.

here is a slightly different situation I had last night in a $25+2 Stars turbo (notice the shortie is posting the BB). my pushing range was any two as far as BB was concerned, as I had won the last 6 hands via pushing or getting my BB folded to me.

PokerStars Game #2992396999: Tournament #14776008, Hold'em No Limit - Level VIII (200/400) - 2005/11/06 - 21:30:01 (ET)
Table '14776008 1' Seat #9 is the button
Seat 2: metfan630 (6960 in chips)
Seat 4: nearlythere (1140 in chips)
Seat 6: sammyss (3520 in chips)
Seat 9: Dazuko (1880 in chips)
metfan630: posts the ante 25
nearlythere: posts the ante 25
sammyss: posts the ante 25
Dazuko: posts the ante 25
metfan630: posts small blind 200
nearlythere: posts big blind 400
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to metfan630 [6s Ad]
sammyss: folds
Dazuko: folds
metfan630: raises 6535 to 6935 and is all-in
nearlythere: folds
metfan630 collected 900 from pot
metfan630: doesn't show hand
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 900 | Rake 0
Seat 2: metfan630 (small blind) collected (900)
Seat 4: nearlythere (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 6: sammyss folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: Dazuko (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
Your point on the Scuba post was that by giving up 2% EV or any EV was wrong. My point is that stealing the blinds from 2d or even 3d stack by keeping shorty in the game is worth more than 10% EV. Also, if you read his words in that paragraph, he starts out by saying "in theory".

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory, he is wrong. He said nothing about second-order effects. He claimed that you should pass up a clear benefit since other players also benefit. This is simply, obviously, 100% theoretically wrong.

Meanwhile, I understand your point very well. I'm not even really arguing with you about your point. It's open for debate, and others have debated it, and I don't feel like debating it.

I'm done.

[GtrHtr]

Fair enough.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Scuba Chuck's analysis was wrong, as I pointed out in his post.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. You picked out one point in my post, and so the rest of it is wrong. Great job.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Scuba Chuck's analysis was wrong, as I pointed out in his post.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. You picked out one point in my post, and so the rest of it is wrong. Great job.

[/ QUOTE ]

OP quoted one paragraph. I was referring to that paragraph, which is completely obvious if you bothered to read this post.

Lighten up.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As you can see, in theory, bigstack doesn’t want to win this hand against shorty, as he transfers 21.6% of $EV to the other two stacks. (You can see that shorty has 24.4% of equity if he wins, but if big stack wins, he only gains 2.8% of equity) So in theory, again, bigstack really does not want to have a good hand here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Big stack wants to win because he gains equity, period. The other two stacks are also happy that big stack wins, but that's irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said in my original post, this part is just theory. Why do you think it is flat out wrong?

[sofere]

The way it is worded, i believe your theory is incorrect because you are judging a move based on how it affects your opponents $EV, not by how it affects your $EV.

Your data was as follows:
[ QUOTE ]
Again, assume the 200/400 blinds.
UTG 5000 (39.3%) (34.1%) (42.1%)
Button 800 (13.1%) (24.4%) (0%)
SB 1500 (19.9%) (16.4%) (26.6%)
BB 2700 (27.7%) (25.1%) (31.3%)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
bigstack doesn’t want to win this hand against shorty

[/ QUOTE ]

As I read it, your contention was that if called by the small stack, you would prefer lose the hand to winning it. According to ICM your equity if you win is 42.1% vs 34.1% if you lose.

Therefore, given that small stack and only small stack calls winning the hand makes you 8% better off than losing. It doesn't matter how much equity was transferred to or from your opponents, all that matters is that you are in a better position than you were before.

[durron597]

I haven't read the replies to this thread yet, but I would only care about keeping the bubble alive if like, you had 2000 fewer chips and the 770 guy had those 2000 chips. Then there would be a lot of chips to pick up by exploiting the bubble.

But with the stacks as given in the OP, you have almost 2/3 of the chips in play already. You are basically guaranteed at least second. Just play to maximize cEV.

[axeshigh]

The big stack will call you with KTo anyway. With 6k+ chips, you have more to lose than to gain.