(22) How can this call be -EV$?

[ QUOTE ]
\Looks marginal at best to me by the analysis. This "Can you really fold AK on the bubble" thing seems to come up about once a quarter and generate a lot of controversy.

Whiffing against a mid-pair enough times in this spot is enough to make a believer out of you. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't been here a whole quarter yet, so I'm happy to be made a believer early. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[niin]

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, you must be putting the villian on one tight ass range when you do the ICM calcs. Seriously, if you were the villian, wouldn't you be pushing with a huge range?

[/ QUOTE ]

I tried tight ranges, loose ranges, random ranges, everything, and I couldn't find a range of hands for villian to have to make this +EV. AK would have to beat the range of hands about 70% of the time for this to be +EV, if I did my ICM calcs right.

[HesseJam]

[ QUOTE ]
Whiffing against a mid-pair enough times in this spot is enough to make a believer out of you. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Yessir, and winning with a pushed shitty pair against AK at the bubble as well. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

This is one of the things I need to remember (not calling AK at the bubble against a big stack, or more exactly: You need to have a very strong case if you call).

[HesseJam]

Sklansky: AK likes to go all-in but does not like to call an all-in.

There is also another meaning of AK:
AK = Anna Kournikova: Looks good but can't win.

[kevkev60614]

Devil's advocate: I think this is a call.

It appears that against most ranges ICM shows a amall loss of equity. But if you win, you're now the big stack. Which means when YOU open push, it's now incorrect for villains to call without a high pair (or AK, I guess I'm arguing).

[me1tdown]

[ QUOTE ]
Devil's advocate: I think this is a call.

It appears that against most ranges ICM shows a amall loss of equity. But if you win, you're now the big stack. Which means when YOU open push, it's now incorrect for villains to call without a high pair (or AK, I guess I'm arguing).

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds like the Gigabet Theory of Stack sizes post:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rue#Post2610396

Making -EV plays to get into a different stack range. The caveat being that I don't believe he was advocating calls that would bust you out.

[fluorescenthippo]

[ QUOTE ]
Devil's advocate: I think this is a call.

It appears that against most ranges ICM shows a amall loss of equity. But if you win, you're now the big stack. Which means when YOU open push, it's now incorrect for villains to call without a high pair (or AK, I guess I'm arguing).

[/ QUOTE ]

they are too stupid to fold AK or 66 correctly which means they call and it hurts you

[runner4life7]

I'm sick of this its less than +.5% so its a fold bull [censored]. Thats not what that means at all. It means its a marginal call not a fold. I play the 30s that means .5% is what like$1.50. If i play like you I'm missing lots of 1-1.5 moves and thats just stupid.

[downtown]

[ QUOTE ]
Whiffing against a mid-pair enough times in this spot is enough to make a believer out of you.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

It's amazing what a good teacher experience can sometimes be.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sick of this its less than +.5% so its a fold bull [censored]. Thats not what that means at all. It means its a marginal call not a fold. I play the 30s that means .5% is what like$1.50. If i play like you I'm missing lots of 1-1.5 moves and thats just stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the +.5% threshold is there because you want some margin of error for the hand ranges you're using and that's one simple way of creating one.

For this particular case, with AKo, it's not really an issue as there is no range you can legitimately put villain on (to be complete, if you know villain will only push with an unpaired ace this is +$EV) which does better than break even (+0$EV), and there are plenty of ranges you can use which are seriously negative.