At what point do you stop thinking in terms of chip EV?

[fnord_too]

Right now, I use the heuristic of half the field being gone. That is, I try to make pure chip EV decisions until half the field is gone, then start giving greater weight to cashing EV considerations. I've played arround some with cashing equity, but I usually considered cases where there is between half the field and 1 table left. (If there is interest from enough people willing to do math, I will start a thread on my immature cashing equity theories. My strong suspicion at this point, based on playing with some numbers, is that the impact of stack size on cashing equity is greatly influenced by stack size variance of the field, and it looks like there is one hairy spot to work through.)

At any rate, who thinks purely in terms of chip ev? Who thinks purely in terms of cashing EV? Who thinks purely in terms of cashing? Who thinks purely in terms of finishing first?

And most importantly, if you don't think purely in any of these terms, what rules do you use to blend them or switch between them?

[A_PLUS]

Post your theories, it is something I would be willing to do a little math leg work on. I think this is something that would help many of those marginal mid game decisions.

[Che]

I think MLG's inflection point thread addressed this issue.

Che

[A_PLUS]

Yeah.....what he said

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
That is, I try to make pure chip EV decisions until half the field is gone, then start giving greater weight to cashing EV considerations


[/ QUOTE ]

Really?

I think that is much too early and CEV=$EV when 1/2 the field is gone.

How does your thinking change?

Personally I do not think in terms of $EV being different from CEV until every placement pays a different amount.

That is not to say that I do not keep my opponenets thoughts of $EV in mind (i.e. playing too tight on the bubble), but my $CEV=$EV usually until the final table.

Until I am at the final table, I am trying to maximize my stack for the final table, so I am always making decisions based on CEV.

Once the payouts vary per placement, I may make some +$EV decisions that are not necessarily +CEV. (i.e. having the pot equity to get all my chips into a multiway pot, but folding due to multiple short stacks ready to bust not involved in the hand)

Am I incorrect in my thinking?

Regards,
Woodguy

[A_PLUS]

The only thing I would disagree with is a slight change at final 20-30 people. At this point, I am usually looking to win many uncontested pots. If I have a good tight table, I will pass up marginally +TC EV situations, b/c I think the may be negative $EV.

Here is an example from a few weeks ago.

The payout structure was pretty flat, then increasing sharply at final table.

Empire 10K.

24 players left (7 handed).

I have been stealing 1-2 per orbit, mixed with the occasional resteal. My stack has been growing steadily from avg, to top 5. I reraise a late position steal with 99. The player pushes and has me covered. Now given my range for him, it was a slightly +TC EV situation to call his push. But I feel like it was -$EV. I would fall to 6th place at a tight table by folding, or be out. I dont think the jump from 6th place to 1st place was as significant a $EV jump to compensate the risk.

If this was the middle of the tournament, I would have called.

Is this wrong? Id love some opinions. For the record, there were apx. 8BB in pot, and I had 30+xBB if I folded. With the range I put him on, I was a 49-51 dog in the pot.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
I think MLG's inflection point thread addressed this issue.

Che

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not read that whole thread, just the original post. The original post is related, but is just observing that there are a lot of factors and listing them. I don't believe cashing considerations are ever not a factor, but rather they are too minor a factor early on to expend energy considering. (This is an intuitive belief, and math could easily make me change my oppinion).

I am guessing a lot of people answered exactly the questions I asked in that thread. (That thread grew too quickly and by the time I had the time to give some thought to it it was so long I passed IIRC.)

I think I will start a thread on cashing equity. I will probably have to wait until I get home at the very least or tomorrow most likely to add a lot of my analysis since it is all at home.

[fnord_too]

I'm going to start a thread on this, but the short answer is that stack size and cashing equity are not linearly proportional. (That is, doubling your stack size does not double your cashing equity. Of course, if you are in the money already, reducing your stack size to zero does not reduce your cashing equity to zero.)