Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="aliengenius, post: 641482, member: 11924"]
Sklansky gives a famous example in TPfAP, that might help expalin:

In Sklansy's example the stacks are as follows:

leader: $2 million
opponent B: $1 million 
opponent C: $1 million
opponent D: $1 million
us: $30,000

Prizes: 
1st: $1.5 million
2nd: $1 million
3rd: $700,000
4th: $500,000
5th: $300,000

Blinds: $10,000/$20,000

In this example the three opponents with one million each are all in (chip leader is not).

We have AA.

You can see that we are way behind our opponents in chip count, and have a very low effective M as well. Sklansky points out that our equity even if we win is still very low (we would only have $120,000 chips), but our [U]actual dollar amount of winnings will increase greatly if we fold.

[/U][B]In other words, we make chips/tournament dollars if we call (+ chip EV long term), but we make [U]actual real money[/U] if we fold.

[/B]Note how the two are opposed to each other here: calling is -EV in real money. Make sense?

This is of course about as extreme a hypothetical as you can get. Anyway, the point is that there could be a correct time to do take x action based on our real money +EV that is the opposite of our +chip EV.

In this case, even though all your other "poker knowledge" (you can accurately access that your hand is stronger than all your opponents ranges) tells you to call (and you would of course do so in a cash game), you should fold here.

This situation on the bubble of a sng (or any tournament really) is similar, although of course to a lesser degree. ICM calculations have to be taken into account in a tournament-- you can't just make your decisions the same way you would for a cash/ring game.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us