attitude on coinflips

[ChrisV]

I think the confusion is arising because people are using EV in different senses. A lot of people only use EV in the context of change in EV as the result of a play.

No play in a SNG has an EV of zero. Every play has an EV measured in percentage of the prize pool. The question is therefore what you use as your baseline for measuring change in EV (equity).

Those saying that folding has a non-zero change in EV are using the equity before the hand started as the reference point. Others prefer to use the EV of folding as the reference point, in which case the change in EV of folding is 0 by definition.

Usually when people say "+EV" they mean compared to the other candidate play in that specific situation. I think this argument is all meaningless semantics and a thread hijack, which should end here.

This thread is a trainwreck [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] So many "right" answers for the wrong reasons

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a trainwreck [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] So many "right" answers for the wrong reasons

[/ QUOTE ]
[censored] that. I pwned him, that's all there is to it. Thread over. holla

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a trainwreck [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] So many "right" answers for the wrong reasons

[/ QUOTE ]
[censored] that. I pwned him, that's all there is to it. Thread over. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

But you didn't :/

It's funny, here you tell me with great confidence about the importance of ICM.

[tigerite]

This thread is hilarious.

I love people who just refuse point-blank to accept anything about their preconceptions is wrong.

[AleoMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
from SSHE page 23

"Quantifying your expectation for calling and raising is often difficult, but folding is easy: It is always zero. When you fold, you are guaranteed to win or lose nothing more. If either calling or raising has a positive expectation, you should not fold."

[/ QUOTE ]

This quote is discussing ring games. That book is about ring games. In a ring game a $1 chip equals $1

This discussion is about tournament equity. Is it really so hard to see the difference between CEV and $EV and how folding can be non-zero in terms of $EV in a tournament situation.

As for another reference that earlier bugged me, as it always does these days...

Having SNG power tools should have little to do with a person's understanding of why confrontation can be bad even with an edge, why tournament $EV can be different from CEV, etc...

I do not own SNGPT, and not to disparage eastbay's work in any way, I really don't think it's necessary to own them in order to understand these concepts. In fact, I think that in order to really get the most benefit fron SNGPT, you should have a good understanding of these concepts to begin with.

The fact that you are succeding at SNGs indicates that in many ways, you might already be applying these concepts more than you think. That or you are playing very weak opponents.

Regards
Brad S

[tigerite]

.. or a luckbox [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Here's another: Making the right play is always 0 EV. Every mistake is -EV. There are no +EV plays. <font color="white">For the nits: Ignore mixed strategies, and fu[/b]ck Shania.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

No, here's an example

[/ QUOTE ]
You simply gave an example in which you are very comfortable with one method of accounting. It does not show your language is the one true tongue, and everyone else is wrong. There have been several different conventions mentioned within this thread, and a 2+2 book was quoted that disagreed with your convention.

I'm not saying your convention is wrong. I'm saying it is silly for you to insist on that convention above all of the other reasonable ones people use, and to pretend that someone must have fundamental misconceptions because they are using a different accounting convention.

[wahooriver]

This is an interesting but somewhat confusing discussion. As I see the problem, it depends.

Going all-in on a coin flip has everything to do with context. I hate going all-in in the first 3 rounds. I will do it with a big edge - but in those stages my risk is too great (avoiding the use of EV here as it seems confusing through differing usage).

I am happy to go all-in when I have a large chip lead and the pusher has a small stack. Here losing does not cripple me - but eliminates one more opponent.

Depending on stack size, I often have to accept the possibility of a coin flip towards the end (down to 4 or 5 players) because I am behind and they are goot players who know how to steal blinds. This forum has many posts on when to push in these situations.

So in summary, my own opinion, avoiding flips early - not necessary. Seek flips when you have a big chip advantage or when you have a low stack late against strong players.