attitude on coinflips - Page 5

Simplistic · #41 10-31-2005, 02:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
KingGordy, here's one from earlier in the thread:
[ QUOTE ]
One example you post a small blind of 100 and the big blind is all in for 101 everyone folds to you, is folding 0 EV?

[/ QUOTE ]

Imagine this 4 handed, blinds 50/100 and the stacks are
CO: t2633
Button: t101
SB: t2633
BB (you): t2633

CO folds, Button pushes for 101, SB folds. You have AA. Folding here is -$EV. Exaggerated for the purpose of proving the point. Actually, folding anything here is -$EV.

-SonnyJay

[/ QUOTE ]i agree with gordy, because folding is always 0EV at least that's what I believe sklansky's books say. however calling is obviously +EV.

Simplistic · #42 10-31-2005, 03:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
KingGordy, here's one from earlier in the thread:
[ QUOTE ]
One example you post a small blind of 100 and the big blind is all in for 101 everyone folds to you, is folding 0 EV?

[/ QUOTE ]

Imagine this 4 handed, blinds 50/100 and the stacks are
CO: t2633
Button: t101
SB: t2633
BB (you): t2633

CO folds, Button pushes for 101, SB folds. You have AA. Folding here is -$EV. Exaggerated for the purpose of proving the point. Actually, folding anything here is -$EV.

-SonnyJay

[/ 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."

applejuicekid · #43 10-31-2005, 03:03 AM

If folding is 0 EV, then how is it possible to gain equity by folding? Now what if the expected value of such change in equity is positive? Wouldn't this make folding +EV?

pergesu · #44 10-31-2005, 03:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
KingGordy, here's one from earlier in the thread:
[ QUOTE ]
One example you post a small blind of 100 and the big blind is all in for 101 everyone folds to you, is folding 0 EV?

[/ QUOTE ]

Imagine this 4 handed, blinds 50/100 and the stacks are
CO: t2633
Button: t101
SB: t2633
BB (you): t2633

CO folds, Button pushes for 101, SB folds. You have AA. Folding here is -$EV. Exaggerated for the purpose of proving the point. Actually, folding anything here is -$EV.

-SonnyJay

[/ 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 ]
Prepost tournament equity:
CO: 32.7%
Button: 1.9%
SB: 32.7%
You: 32.7%

When you fold, the resulting equities are:
CO: 32%
Button: 4.6%
SB: 31.8%
You: 31.6%

Congratulations, you just lost 1.1% of tournament equity. That's 11 ROI points.

Once you understand that SNGs employ ENTIRELY different concepts from a 1/2 LHE game and the MTTs you're used to play, you'll become a much more solid winner.

edit: Minor adjustment to equities, I had given BB 10 extra chips.

SonnyJay · #45 10-31-2005, 03:08 AM

Again, I will point you in the direction of a concept called ICM that measures changes in prize pool equity instead of chipEV (I have a feeling I've discussed this somewhere recently). Folding here decreases your prize pool equity (it's transferring it to the Button) and thus lowers your $EV.

Sklansky has written great stuff. It's helped me a lot. Here are things that some people must learn:
1. All poker is not the same.
2. Cash game poker and tournament poker are not the same.
3. SNGs and MTTs are not the same.

Sklansky wrote about the value of folding as 0 EV about cash games. SSHE is not a book on tournament strategy. Tournaments have different goals and different applicable strategies than cash games. $EV does not exist in a cash game. You have no prize pool equity, you are simply trying to make decisions based on the current pot. In a tournament you aren't trying to win a given pot but rather increase your stake in the payout structure. It seems like this distinction is not getting through (scratch that, I know this is the case).

Simplistic, I will simply ask you to absorb what has been said in this thread. It's good advice. Trust me. I was playing the way you were last year and the changes I've made due to advice like this has helped me more than I can say.

-SonnyJay

#46 10-31-2005, 03:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
KingGordy, here's one from earlier in the thread:
[ QUOTE ]
One example you post a small blind of 100 and the big blind is all in for 101 everyone folds to you, is folding 0 EV?

[/ QUOTE ]

Imagine this 4 handed, blinds 50/100 and the stacks are
CO: t2633
Button: t101
SB: t2633
BB (you): t2633

CO folds, Button pushes for 101, SB folds. You have AA. Folding here is -$EV. Exaggerated for the purpose of proving the point. Actually, folding anything here is -$EV.

-SonnyJay

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, let's break this down. What is EV? Expected value. The amount of value a play has over a very long period of time if you were to do it over and over again. In the above example you have posted a big blind of 100 (a negative EV event). The button goes all in for 1 more chip. If I fold, 100% of the time I will neither lose anything or gain anything. Therefore the expected value of folding is zero. The 100 chips I have already put in the middle are irrelevant. That was an entirely seperate event from the decision I have to make now. The expected value of calling is obviously positive, no matter what two cards I have. However just because the expected value of calling is positive does not mean the expected value of folding is negative. It doesn't mean it's a good play, it just means that it's not negative EV. The reason you will lose money however by folding is because the posting of the blind itself was a negative EV event.

Simplistic · #47 10-31-2005, 03:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
KingGordy, here's one from earlier in the thread:
[ QUOTE ]
One example you post a small blind of 100 and the big blind is all in for 101 everyone folds to you, is folding 0 EV?

[/ QUOTE ]

Imagine this 4 handed, blinds 50/100 and the stacks are
CO: t2633
Button: t101
SB: t2633
BB (you): t2633

CO folds, Button pushes for 101, SB folds. You have AA. Folding here is -$EV. Exaggerated for the purpose of proving the point. Actually, folding anything here is -$EV.

-SonnyJay

[/ 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 ]
Prepost tournament equity:
CO: 32.7%
Button: 1.9%
SB: 32.7%
You: 32.7%

When you fold, the resulting equities are:
CO: 32%
Button: 4.6%
SB: 31.8%
You: 31.6%

Congratulations, you just lost 1.1% of tournament equity. That's 11 ROI points.

Once you understand that SNGs employ ENTIRELY different concepts from a 1/2 LHE game and the MTTs you're used to play, you'll become a much more solid winner.

edit: Minor adjustment to equities, I had given BB 10 extra chips.

[/ QUOTE ]ok I can understand how folding here gives up equity in your expected payout.

if I translate this situation to a cash game, where the button has 1.01 and pushes all-in, it's folded to me in the BB and it's .01 for me to call. is folding EV- here?

SonnyJay · #48 10-31-2005, 03:16 AM

Read peregsu and my posts. Don't look at it as the 1 chip versus 0 chips. Look at the prize pool equity in pergesu's post. That's 1.1% of the prize pool that's no longer yours. It's money out of your pocket. Independent of the prize pool your tournament chips have no value. One tournament chip is meaningless to you. $1.10 out of a $10+1 prize pool is.

-SonnyJay

Simplistic · #49 10-31-2005, 03:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I was playing the way you were last year and the changes I've made due to advice like this has helped me more than I can say.

-SonnyJay

[/ QUOTE ]may I ask what level you're playing at and ROI you're seeing right now? how different was it back before you took things like ICM into account?

#50 10-31-2005, 03:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If folding is 0 EV, then how is it possible to gain equity by folding? Now what if the expected value of such change in equity is positive? Wouldn't this make folding +EV?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, there are certain tournament equity situations that could arise (and frequently do arise in SNG's) that make the value of folding different then 0. I was sort of looking at it from a more theoretical, cash game chip perspective than a tournament equity perspective.

I was just trying to get the point across that just because a play is suboptimal does not make it negative EV, and that being forced to post blinds is a negative EV event that must be overcome through many positive EV decisions (which is why folding is always 0 EV, but if you do it every hand it's a losing strategy).