Standard, yet worth discussing

[Benal]

[ QUOTE ]
Get in there and gamble

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. Poooooosh

[TripleQ]

Do you suppose that this may be the case where you'd be willing to take a modestly -EV situation in a hand (i.e. pushing knowing UTG has a K or 66) but over the entire tournament would be +EV? Plus your implied odds are probably better when pushing the flop as opposed to betting the turn if the spade hits.

The math:

Let's say he's got something like KTs (3), KJ (12), KQ (12), 66 (3), 33 (1), QsJs (1). His line makes him look a little donkish, so maybe he has a wider range, but I think this range can serve well as a representation of whatever his actual range is.

I'm also gonna assume that the only reasonable raise here is a push to simplify the math.

So, let's say we push and he really is a donk and calls with all the hands in his range. Then, your equity in the final pot is 49% of 1500 = 735, and we put in an extra 640, so the cEV is +t95 (taking the playing from where you stopped the action).

Now, if we push and he folds his QsJs and his KTs, that's 4/32 hands. So, 12.5% of the time we earn the current pot of 335. The other 87.5% of the time, we have 47.7% equity in a pot of t1500 = t715.5, after putting in an extra t640. Thus, our total cEV on the play is .125 * 335 + .875 * (715.5-640) = ~t108.

What if he calls us only with a set? Then, he folds 28/32 hands. So, 87.5% of the time he folds, and 12.5% of the time we have a cEV of .29*1500 - 640 = -205. Total cEV = t267.5.

Now, if we call and he pushes any turn, we won't have odds to call unimproved. 14/47 cards improve us on the turn. So, we fold 70% of the time and lose t115. 9/47 cards give us the nut flush on the turn--giving us a cEV of .97*1500-640 = t815 19% of the time. 5/47 cards give us trips or two pair (I checked, almost the same equity) for a cEV of .87*1500-640 = t665 11% of the time. This makes the total cEV on the play t147.5.

Thus, this is all very read dependent. If you have good FE, pushing the flop is best. Otherwise, calling's best.

[fnurt]

Thanks for doing the math. I'm surprised to see that calling is +EV, I would have assumed the opposite.

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for doing the math. I'm surprised to see that calling is +EV, I would have assumed the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

You clearly have odds. Throw in implied odds and it's obvious. Also, calling is lower variance, which translates to +EV in tournies.