Making a slightly negative ev play to build a stack in NL

[octop]

I play mostly 1/2 or 2/4 nl and other than the Wynn every where I play has been a capped buy in. I do not run over a table when I have chips but if there are several big stacks at the table I like to be able to stack them when I hit my hand.
I will do things like checkraise all in with a decent draw even if I think there is a good chance I will get called because if I do get called I won't be far behind and I can do damage to a big stack.
For example Paradise 1/2nl
I get queen 10 of clubs in the bb 3 limpers
Flop is AcKc rag
I pot one caller, a 100 dollar stack makes it 30 to go and I put him all in. He had actually limped with ak but I was still 43% to win the hand when called. If I was at the Wynn against a calling station I would have played this very differently.

A better is example would be at the Mandalay Bay. The structure is almost as bad as the players (2/4 nl 200 max)
These donkeys slosh chips around all day so you get stacks from 600-100 in front of terrible players. So if i were to get ak in the bb and a donkey who raised a lot made it 20, and got 3-4 callers I would just push hoping to accumulate some chips so I can play with a reasonable stack against retards. Is my thinking flawed on this matter?

[soko]

Calling with negative expectation will lose you money in the long run. Period. If you know you are an underdog and you take the bet you are donating money. There is no reason to go all in with the worst of it just to build a stack, play a bigger game if you want bigger stacks.

That being said,

In the hand with the QT flush draw your bet should have been an attempt to steal the pot and you were commited after that bet so you had to call.

Pushing AK before the flop is not a bad move at all if the existing pot is worth a steal attempt and you think they will fold to the bet. If you're called your at worst a coinflip for all hands except AA and KK so you have positive expectation because of the money already in the pot.

[Snarf]

This could be true in tournaments, but less so in cash games.

In cash games, a bad call is a bad call...

Though if you uber-curios for sure you'd have to multiply and math out all the following:

the % of dog you were
the % of fold equity you had to you're push
the % of +EV having you're bigger stack gets you
(this last one is almost impossible to measure)

In short - its overall a losing proposition....Unless you sucked without lots of chips, and were a god with lots of chips....then it might pay off in the end...maybe...and you should work your not-huge stacked game.

[pzhon]

It's reasonable to make -EV plays on one hand if you feel that the value of chips in your stack (at the end of the hand) is superlinear. If you feel you can win $20/hour with a short stack, and $50/hour with a big stack, you can make a play that costs you $10 for a 1/3 chance of getting a deep stack an hour early.

Many players overdo this just because having a big stack is fun. In some games, it is more profitable to have a short stack.

[AlanBostick]

[ QUOTE ]
Though if you uber-curios for sure you'd have to multiply and math out all the following:

the % of dog you were
the % of fold equity you had to you're push
the % of +EV having you're bigger stack gets you
(this last one is almost impossible to measure)

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense. If you're playing online and have been downloading hand histories, and have a lot of hands on record, you can sort through them and break out results by stack size. Then you would be able to measure the impact of stack size on win rate and variance.

[b33nz]

NOTE: The math below might not be accurate, I'm pretty sure I did everything right, but if anyone finds a mistake in the math, please point it out.)
_____________________
I agree with Shnarf.

Making -EV plays in order to have a better chance of winning the tournament could actually be profitable.
Lets say you are a good player and as of right now, you have a 25% of winning an SNG. Now youre deciding whether to make an -EV play and try to double up, in which if you do, your chances of winning the tournament increase to 70%. So now it becomes worth it to gamble as a 40% on an even money shot.

Ok so assume you call. 60% of the time you are out of the tournament and lose. 40% you win and double up. 70% of that 40% (which is 28% total) you will end up winning.

So lets say you play the 55s.
Out of 100 situations.
You will lose $3,300. (55 x 60 = 3,300.) 55 represents the buyin and 60 represents the percentage of times you will lose that hand and be knocked out.
You will win $7,000. (250 x 28 = 7,000.) 250 represents the 1st place prize money and 28 represents the percentage of times you will win the tournament.

So you make a total profit of $3,700.

Now lets assume you would fold that hand and end up winning only 25% of the time. So:
25 x 250 = $6,250 is how much you would make.
75 x 55 = $4,125 is how much you would lose.
6,250 - 4,125 = $2,125 profit if you fold.
___________________________________________
So now we do: $3,700 - $2,125 = $1,575 TOTAL PROFIT over the course of 100 similar situations if you decide to call. Do you see how much 3% increases your profit (going from a 25% if you fold to a 28% if you call and win)? That's more than 28 buy-ins worth of profit.

Also, this is not even taking into account if there are three players. Say your down to the last 3 players and if you fold, you are more likely to get a 3rd than if you call and win. If you double up, your chances of getting at least a 2nd place increase dramatically because you have just doubled your chips and have also decreased someone elses stack. So with folding, you can estimate you have about a 25% to win, a 30% to get 2nd, and a 45% to get third. With calling and winning the hand, you get a 28% to win, a 45% chance to get a 2nd, and a 27% to get a third. So calling with -EV will also get you more seconds that when you decide to fold.

Remember tho: you have to be a good player in order to make these kinds of plays, so not any regular schmo can just make them and say it was the right thing to do.

I think there are better ways to increase your stack size in a fixed buy-in ring game than purposely making high risk/high reward plays when you don't have to. I would imagine it's -EV just like overplaying inferior hands like the pointy-headed fish do.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say you are a good player and as of right now, you have a 25% of winning an SNG. Now youre deciding whether to make an -EV play and try to double up, in which if you do, your chances of winning the tournament increase to 70%.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your example is really bad.

The normal assumption in tournament play is that your probability of winning the tournament is linear. It is the fraction of chips you have. For good players, the probability of winning should be sublinear. Doubling the number of chips you have less than doubles the probability that you win the tournament.

Typically, in tournaments, the value of chips is sublinear because of the prizes for not finishing first. These are particularly important in SNGs. If you double your chips, you rarely double your expected share of second place or third place. Only 20% of the prize pool rewards you for finishing first rather than just the top 2. 60% of the prize pool rewards you for making it into the top 3 rather than just the top 4.

See the ICM calculator.

Finally, the OP was talking about cash games, not tournaments.