$22: Push or wait with an uber short stack

[pergesu]

Yeah, I felt like it was, and then did some math that strengthened that opinion.

I hear what you're saying, and it's similar to the situations you and I have talked about in which a successful loose steal opens the door to a larger number of even greater +EV situations. However we've yet to come to a reasonable conclusion on that, and anyway we should start with analyzing the EV of pushing this particular hand.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I felt like it was, and then did some math that strengthened that opinion.

I hear what you're saying, and it's similar to the situations you and I have talked about in which a successful loose steal opens the door to a larger number of even greater +EV situations. However we've yet to come to a reasonable conclusion on that, and anyway we should start with analyzing the EV of pushing this particular hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Future situations should always have a bearing on the present. If this is -EV, then I dont see how you are going to get a better spot enough of the time to find a +EV.

Its sort of akin to Betgo's argument that we should wait for the blinds to hit us because then EVERY decision will be +EV. There is something you are not taking into account in the math because I don't buy it. But nice work nonetheless.

[pergesu]

I'm saying the same thing as betgo then. If you get a +EV push, awesome, take it. If not, just call your stack in the BB or get a walk if you're lucky.

[GtrHtr]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I felt like it was, and then did some math that strengthened that opinion.

I hear what you're saying, and it's similar to the situations you and I have talked about in which a successful loose steal opens the door to a larger number of even greater +EV situations. However we've yet to come to a reasonable conclusion on that, and anyway we should start with analyzing the EV of pushing this particular hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is an additional (or maybe just diff.) comment. My FE is nothing, but with t330 I still have value in terms of $EV. What I would hope would happen, is that the BB calls and I suckout or have him dominated. Now I have t735 and almost have some FE which I can then parlay into something - I hope.

[curtains]

my instinct is to fold btw, but if you are playing opps who might fold a decent % in BB then you shuold likely push. however at the 215s Id fold this in a flash and hope to actually be dealt a good hand.

[curtains]

changed my mind, pushing is probably correct. I should know this, but Im so great that Ive never been this shortstacked before.

[ZeroPointMachine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I felt like it was, and then did some math that strengthened that opinion.

I hear what you're saying, and it's similar to the situations you and I have talked about in which a successful loose steal opens the door to a larger number of even greater +EV situations. However we've yet to come to a reasonable conclusion on that, and anyway we should start with analyzing the EV of pushing this particular hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Future situations should always have a bearing on the present. If this is -EV, then I dont see how you are going to get a better spot enough of the time to find a +EV.

Its sort of akin to Betgo's argument that we should wait for the blinds to hit us because then EVERY decision will be +EV. There is something you are not taking into account in the math because I don't buy it. But nice work nonetheless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what is not being taken into account in the math is the true value of your tournament equity if you fold this hand. ICM does not account for the fact that your stack is crippled. With virtually no potential future FE your stack is not really worth what ICM says it is. You have a small, but real, amount of FE here. If you pass it up it is gone.

I think when the blinds are still relatively low for the rest of the table, but your stack is so small that you have no fold equity you really have less tournament equity than ICM calculates.

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I felt like it was, and then did some math that strengthened that opinion.

I hear what you're saying, and it's similar to the situations you and I have talked about in which a successful loose steal opens the door to a larger number of even greater +EV situations. However we've yet to come to a reasonable conclusion on that, and anyway we should start with analyzing the EV of pushing this particular hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Future situations should always have a bearing on the present. If this is -EV, then I dont see how you are going to get a better spot enough of the time to find a +EV.

Its sort of akin to Betgo's argument that we should wait for the blinds to hit us because then EVERY decision will be +EV. There is something you are not taking into account in the math because I don't buy it. But nice work nonetheless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what is not being taken into account in the math is the true value of your tournament equity if you fold this hand. ICM does not account for the fact that your stack is crippled. With virtually no potential future FE your stack is not really worth what ICM says it is. You have a small, but real, amount of FE here. If you pass it up it is gone.

I think when the blinds are still relatively low for the rest of the table, but your stack is so small that you have no fold equity you really have less tournament equity than ICM calculates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? How could you have less tourney equity than ICM calculates here? Of course it doesn't take into account FE - it never does.

In the math I showed, I included your FE on this particular hand. If you argue that when you win (either uncontested or when called) then you have more FE, I agree with that...but you still need to calculate the equity of this particular hand to use as a baseline before making adjustments for subsequent hands. I showed that a fold shows a 1.3% difference in equity vs a call. Is the equity you gain on subsequent hands a greater difference than that? I don't know, and it's tough to figure out...but as a general rule I'm not going to make a play that loses me 1.3% equity.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I felt like it was, and then did some math that strengthened that opinion.

I hear what you're saying, and it's similar to the situations you and I have talked about in which a successful loose steal opens the door to a larger number of even greater +EV situations. However we've yet to come to a reasonable conclusion on that, and anyway we should start with analyzing the EV of pushing this particular hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Future situations should always have a bearing on the present. If this is -EV, then I dont see how you are going to get a better spot enough of the time to find a +EV.

Its sort of akin to Betgo's argument that we should wait for the blinds to hit us because then EVERY decision will be +EV. There is something you are not taking into account in the math because I don't buy it. But nice work nonetheless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what is not being taken into account in the math is the true value of your tournament equity if you fold this hand. ICM does not account for the fact that your stack is crippled. With virtually no potential future FE your stack is not really worth what ICM says it is. You have a small, but real, amount of FE here. If you pass it up it is gone.

I think when the blinds are still relatively low for the rest of the table, but your stack is so small that you have no fold equity you really have less tournament equity than ICM calculates.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I dont think thats it. The calling ranges you put your opponents on is basically a function of what you consider your FE to be. After converting those chips to $ (ICM) you have two equities amounts. The FE is factored in there.

[ZeroPointMachine]

ICM assumes that all stacks are equally playable. It doesn't give you an extra dose of equity because you have a monster stack and know you can steam roll the table and it doesn't subtract any equity when your stack is so small you have no moves left to make.

It calculates finish distribution based on relative stack sizes and your equity based on payout structure.

I would argue that when your stack is really small this model over values it.