THE FORUMS


German ForumsGeneral DiscussionStrategyFrench Forum

Go Back   PokerTips.org Forums > Strategy > Beginners' Corner

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Jan 15, 2008, 4:24pm   #31
Lord Mushroom
The Dark Knight
 
Lord Mushroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 3,568
Reputation: 42
Lord Mushroom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deuce65 View Post
Well, if you feel unable to play to your opponent's standards then yes, folding is in order. In this case however, I suggest improving your game.
This whole "but I can make him fold" argument is just stupid. We were using 55/45 and 50,1/49,9 as simplistic situations to illustrate the dilemma of folding a marginal move or not.

The question is if it was the first hand of a winner-takes-all tournament, the stacks are 1000, the blinds are 1/2, you are in the BB, it is folded to the SB who goes all-in, you estimate the equity of a call to be exactly 50% (making calling super-marginal +EV), do you call?

You now say maybe, and that´s ok. All you need to do now is admit you previously meant that it would always be wrong to fold in such a situation (as I have already shown you did).

Quote:
Way to take something completely out of context,
How is it out of context?
__________________
(00:42-03:27)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TibA0sQQZw8

The bot has spoken.
Lord Mushroom est déconnecté   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Don't like this ad? Register to make it go away!

Old Jan 15, 2008, 4:56pm   #32
deuce65
Brunson
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 221
Reputation: 10
deuce65 is on a distinguished road
Default

"The question is if it was the first hand of a winner-takes-all tournament, the stacks are 1000, the blinds are 1/2, you are in the BB, it is folded to the SB who goes all-in, you estimate the equity of a call to be exactly 50% (making calling super-marginal +EV), do you call?"

Now you are just making things up. Anyone can read the Original Post and see that no, that wasn't his question. His exact question was "So is surviving the first hour nearly always always better than surviving it 2/3 of the time but with more chips each time?" Not, "your opponent goes all in with a hand that you somehow know you are 50/50 with".

"You now say maybe, and that´s ok. All you need to do now is admit you previously meant that it would always be wrong to fold in such a situation (as I have already shown you did)."

No, I have said that the whole time. Again, anyone can read what I previously wrote.

"I am not advocating being a maniac (though that can work if you are the right sort for it). What I am saying though is that I think there is a lot of easy money to be had early on and I think it is poor play to not try and take advantage of that. As you get further in, the players are only going to get better (or rather, be better) so why avoid hands against weak opponents when you will have to face stronger ones later on?"

"As always, I am not suggesting that one follow this specific strategy. What works for me may not work for you. With that said, I think it is extremely useful to listen to and hear what everyone else thinks on the subject (if for no other reason then it helps me rob you at the table"

"
I never meant to imply that it is a huge advantage."

"
Well, if you had just said this from the get go you would have saved me a lot of time commenting as with that, I agree. Everything is situation dependent."

" No, my solution is to not have some sort of rule where I refuse to play with only a slight advantage."

"No, my solution is to consider all my options, and in some cases, that includes taking a bit of a risk early on. I'm not saying one should do this all the time, what I do think though is that one shouldn't exclude certain things just because they are afraid of a risk."

I have said this the whole time. Yet for some reason you seem insistent on disagreeing with me, and I don't really know why. I can understand not agreeing with the way I play. But to just make stuff up about what I said when any person on here can go back and read that I in fact didn't say what you claim, makes no sense to me.
deuce65 est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2008, 6:11am   #33
Lord Mushroom
The Dark Knight
 
Lord Mushroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 3,568
Reputation: 42
Lord Mushroom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deuce65 View Post
Now you are just making things up. Anyone can read the Original Post and see that no, that wasn't his question.
The thread then went on to discuss the concept of turning down +$EV moves in general as opposed to that specific case.

I notice you failed to answer what you would do in my 50/50 example, so you see it is not easy to tell what your stance is on the turning down +$EV moves issue.

Quote:
I am not advocating being a maniac (though that can work if you are the right sort for it). What I am saying though is that I think there is a lot of easy money to be had early on and I think it is poor play to not try and take advantage of that.

As you get further in, the players are only going to get better (or rather, be better) so why avoid hands against weak opponents when you will have to face stronger ones later on?"

"As always, I am not suggesting that one follow this specific strategy. What works for me may not work for you. With that said, I think it is extremely useful to listen to and hear what everyone else thinks on the subject (if for no other reason then it helps me rob you at the table"

"
I never meant to imply that it is a huge advantage."

"
Well, if you had just said this from the get go you would have saved me a lot of time commenting as with that, I agree. Everything is situation dependent."

" No, my solution is to not have some sort of rule where I refuse to play with only a slight advantage."

"No, my solution is to consider all my options, and in some cases, that includes taking a bit of a risk early on. I'm not saying one should do this all the time, what I do think though is that one shouldn't exclude certain things just because they are afraid of a risk."

I have said this the whole time.
As I have said, you have at times said it may be correct to turn down +$EV moves, but at times you have also said it is never correct. Here are quotes saying it is never correct:


"What makes a 55/45 play +EV in a cash game? Well, we know that in a cash game, over the long term, the results should even out, with us getting the (slight) best of it. Now if you consider a TM to be an isolated incident, then it doesn't make sense to take such a risk. But a TM isn't an isolated incident, anymore then one particular hand is in a cash game. We can always buy into another TM, just as we can reload in a cash game. The long term might be longer with TMs, but it still makes sense to think in terms of the long term."

"But in a cash game, losing your entire buy in gives you nothing either. You can of course buy in again, but then, in a TM you can always buy in again too."

"A move is either +ev or is not. If it is, then it should be taken, if it isn't, then it shouldn't. Why would we intentionaly let +ev moves pass us?"

"Why are we afraid to drop out of the TM anyway? I don't see that aspect as being any different then a cash game. We know we might lose our buyin in a cash game, but we can always buyin again. Same thing in a TM."


To get this over with I am willing to accept that you agree you simply didn´t see that claiming a hand in a tournament is just like a hand in a cash-game indirectly means one should never turn down +$EV moves, and that your "if a move is +$EV you should take it" comment was a mistake of some sort (grammatical, logical, whatever).
__________________
(00:42-03:27)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TibA0sQQZw8

The bot has spoken.
Lord Mushroom est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2008, 10:11am   #34
deuce65
Brunson
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 221
Reputation: 10
deuce65 is on a distinguished road
Default

"I notice you failed to answer what you would do in my 50/50 example, so you see it is not easy to tell what your stance is on the turning down +$EV moves issue."

I already responded to you, you just don't want to read it. "No, my solution is to consider all my options, and in some cases, that includes taking a bit of a risk early on. I'm not saying one should do this all the time, what I do think though is that one shouldn't exclude certain things just because they are afraid of a risk."

Or how about, "Everything is situation dependent".

How can that be interpreted as *anything* but sometimes I will do it, and sometimes I won't?

"The thread then went on to discuss the concept of turning down +$EV moves in general as opposed to that specific case."

No, it isn't ever correct. We're obviously using very different definitions of the term EV. In the OP, the guy was asking about taking a 55/45 situation. If it is +EV, one should take it. If it is -EV, then one should not. Notice the dollar sign there in your quote. In this case, EV is talking about dollars. If a move leads to you, on average, making money over the long term, then it is +EV. It doesn't matter if your odds of winning are 10 or 90 percent. In cash games, this is more obvious. Assume we are HU. We know calling with AA pre is +EV, because we know we are at worse 80% to win, and that in the long term, we will win more money then we lose.
But the other reason is occurs if we are not HU. If we are only 50% to win, but will win 10-1 on our money, then we are correct to call. This doesn't even begin to get into what I was mentioning before. That while our hand might only be 55/45, we might, if we are a good player, actually have a say, 75% win rate with that hand.
In a TM it is less obvious of course. But all of these things are still there, they are just there in a different sort of way. In a cash game it is easy to see how playing a 55/45 situation is +EV. In a TM, playing in a 55/45 situation might not be. Remember, EV isn't "what are our chances of winning money on this particular hand long term", but rather, "what are our chances of winning money with this *play* long term".

EV in a TM isn't any different then it is in a cash game, it just appears to be different because of the form it takes. In a cash game, it is easy to see how while in one particular hand we might lose, playing it is good because in the long term we will make money off it. In a TM that is harder to see, because many many hands make up the same "one hand" as in a cash game.

I understand that I might not be explaining this in the best way; these are mathematical things that don't translate perfectly into English. With that said, this is precisely *why* I enjoy TMs. Because most people simply don't see them that way.


Let me reiterate so there is no confusion:

"Remember, EV isn't "what are our chances of winning money on this particular hand long term", but rather, "what are our chances of winning money with this *play* long term".

I realize that many players don't see things that way, and that may be fine for them. But that is how I see it.
deuce65 est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2008, 10:20am   #35
deuce65
Brunson
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 221
Reputation: 10
deuce65 is on a distinguished road
Default

"To get this over with I am willing to accept that you agree you simply didn´t see that claiming a hand in a tournament is just like a hand in a cash-game indirectly means one should never turn down +$EV moves, and that your "if a move is +$EV you should take it" comment was a mistake of some sort (grammatical, logical, whatever)."

I didn't see this bit, so I didn't reply to it in my above post. I almost hesitate to even mention anything, as I pretty much covered it all above.

But I think this is a good spot for a summation so I will. A plus EV move is one that will make you money over time. Whether that be, taking an 80/20 spot in TM, or a 55/45 spot in a TM, or a 10/90 in a TM. Obviously, figuring out which of these are plus EV and which are negative EV is the hard part. The best opponent though is the one that doesn't even try.
deuce65 est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2008, 12:35pm   #36
Lord Mushroom
The Dark Knight
 
Lord Mushroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 3,568
Reputation: 42
Lord Mushroom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deuce65 View Post
Or how about, "Everything is situation dependent".

How can that be interpreted as *anything* but sometimes I will do it, and sometimes I won't?
Because then later you say things which directly or indirectly means you will never do it, and as you have had lots of arguments against turning down +EV moves, I figured it was more likely you thought it was always wrong to turn down +EV moves.

Quote:
"The thread then went on to discuss the concept of turning down +$EV moves in general as opposed to that specific case."

No, it isn't ever correct. We're obviously using very different definitions of the term EV.
Aha, you weren´t wrong after all. Your mistake was using an incorrect definition of EV. You are using +EV as "profitable when everything (including future hands, time, etc.) is included", but this is very unusual especially regarding tournaments.

In cash-games we use the term EV. But in tournaments we split EV into cEV (the expected value in terms of chips when ignoring everything except the current hand) and $EV (the expected value in terms of dollars if this is the last hand in the tournament and the rest of the tournament is a lottery with chips as tickets).

When people use the term EV for tournaments, it is hard to know if they mean cEV or $EV, but they mean one of them.

The original poster wanted to know if giving up a specific +$EV move would be profitable. He could have meant cEV, but the principle of the answer to his question would be the same.

If he was using your definition, he would have been asking something along the lines of "is the correct move, the correct move?". We get a lot of stupid questions here on PokerTips, but that one would have been the champion of them all, so it was easy to understand he was not using this definition.

Bottom line:
You weren´t wrong, but your statements were wrong due to a definition error. Either way you made a non English grammar mistake.

While the mistake was just as bad as the one I accused you of, it would have been more fun to nail you for a play-mistake or a logical mistake. But as you know, I am working on that.
__________________
(00:42-03:27)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TibA0sQQZw8

The bot has spoken.

Last edited by Lord Mushroom; Jan 16, 2008 at 12:39pm.
Lord Mushroom est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2008, 1:00pm   #37
Notjitsu
Professional
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,092
Reputation: 120
Notjitsu will become famous soon enoughNotjitsu will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joes28 View Post
basically, +tourney money ev doesnt necessarily mean +real money ev... its possible that the decision with negative (or less +ev) tourney money ev is more +ev real money than the +ev tourney money decision

which is why there are certain times when folding aces pre is correct etc.. (though this is disgusting and id probably never do it).
I was going to add something to the initial discussion, read this, and then stopped. The only EV that really matters is the EV for real money not chips.

I am curious what the rest of the postings were about after this, but Joe nailed it on the head in two sentences.
Notjitsu est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 6:19am. vBulletin 3.7.4 Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.