Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="dj11, post: 763191, member: 13851"] Not so sure it will fly, but when/if I run into the situation I'll use your term. I'm not a big fan of the 'automatic' call by the big stack in those situations. If we ignore cards for a moment, and deal purely with the suckout % and consider it to be a 50/50 thing. This makes it a neutral EV for the caller and the shover alike. If the call is automatic, (ATC) half the time shorty will double up, half the time he dies. If however he gets not action he has to repeat that process, and everyone at that table knows he is short stack shoving with his brand of ATC. If the call is based on ATC, then any notion of +EV is flawed. The only positive outcome is eliminating a competitor, and those odds are 50/50. For the caller (big stack), the down side when things go wrong can be (it depends) worse than upside gain. The more times he has to do this, the less his percentage of success becomes. Lets say he has to do this 3 times to get healthy. .50x.50x.50 =12.5% of the time he will succeed in shove fest. Now lets assume the call is not automatic, and that the big stack or any larger stack will call with much better cards (Ax, suited connectors, even small pairs), which will tilt the coinflips away from even for shorty, and lets say for sake of easiness 60/40 against shorty. Don't get hung up on that 60/40 figure, it is for example purposes only, it may only be 51-49. The point being that if the caller has better cards his pf odds will be better for any EV. Lets also add in here that the first of these went uncontested, so shorty is even a bit bigger. It still works out .40x.40x.40 = 6.4 % success rate. So which is the better math? I understand that along the lines during a tourney it falls on each participant to do their 'duty' and eliminate their fair share of opponents, but in a tourney situation this must be balanced (IMO) by a healthy survival instinct. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us