'-EV' calls 10bb deep? theory question

wiarygodny · 2013-08-03T10:30:13Z

ive recently came across a somewhat new (at least for me) concept of making calls outside of Nash ranges, even if we know the pusher is on Nash and we're still 10bb deep. It was advocated by a respected player, i believe a winning one as well, let's refer to him as XYZ from now on. Since it's something completely new for me i wanted to get your opininions on the matter since if he's right than i leave definitely too much money on the tables by not making such calls. here's an example stack setup from a 6max with a 60/40 payout structure, blinds 100/200: CO 2200 BU 5400 SB 2200 BB 2200 here's Nash for it assumptions: - BU, SB and BB are (good) regs - all of them KNOW that each other is a (good) reg - SB and BB are putting BU on a Nash range when he open pushes If i was SB/BB i would simply call Nash vs a BU push. XYZ says that blinds should include in their calling ranges hands that are not in Nash, hands that have a negative EVDiff% (he said he would go as low as -0.8% in the given spot, although he didn't specify whether thats for BB or SB, i assume he meant BB and the value for SB is gonna be smaller.) His explanation: blinds know that BU, being a good reg, is gonna abuse the stack setup which means that every orbit their chips are gonna slowly migrate to his stack and Nash does not account for it. So us taking a -EV call has nothing to do with our perceived negative edge but simply with the FGS which is a result of an unfavorable for us stack setup (thats how i understand his explanation at least). Originally i disagreed and tbh im still not convinced. i always thought that Nash already kinda accounts for us losing chips on average when in blinds (hence negative numbers in the EQDiff column of the Nash table for SB and BB). So if thats the case than i understand that our Nash calling range is already calculated taking that into consideration, meaning that it's the range we're gonna lose the least with vs a BU's Nash push. Which results in the following - if we call with a hand outside of Nash, we're gonna lose more EQ itlr than if we have folded it, meaning we're making a clear mistake, a -EV play. I always thought, was taught, that while -EV pushes are standard plays in a lot of cases -EV calls (thats how they're gonna look in an ICM calculator which doesn't account for FGS) should be made only in very specific circumstances (most likley when we're short and desperate). Thats why i would never ever even consider making a play like this being 10bb deep. Have I completely misunderstood such a basic concept, meaning i was calling too tight all these years??? If thats the case than its a massive leak in my game that needs plugging asap. But maybe im right and XYZ is a bit off in this matter? p.s. while working with the ICM Trainer ive noticed that when it produces Nash tables it always gives the FGS ranges as well and in most cases calling ranges for the blinds are much wider than their traditional Nash equivalents. So maybe thats it? it would be great if someone (pzhon? &diams;) could clarify that for me since its a really important part of the game. Even if someone doesn't know the details of the theory behind it would be nice if you can at least say whether you make such calls or not. cheers everybody!

Sit and Go Tournaments

Last Post by _Anonymous_ 13 years ago

21 Posts

7 Users

0 Reactions

5,842 Views

RSS

_Anonymous_

14.08.2013, 20:58 0

Maniac81 sums up my thoughts on this topic nicely.

Originally posted by Maniac81
I think that your future +ev Situations must be far greater than +0.5% to make this -EV Call profitable overall.
You lose 0.5% equity in both Situations(call and win or call and lose) but in one situation you have no chance to get it back.

I think you can estimate the effect of busting out by assigning a weighted average to the future hands. For example, if you want to take a -0.5 call, this call will obviously cause you to bust X%. Should you then assign (100-X%) to the following hand expected edge because you are not expected to see this edge 100%?

I can definitely see merit to XYZ's strategy. This is actually employed in standard FGS calculations. If you use holdemresources FGS you will see that it will assign wider ranges to call situations (ie. making calls outside nash).

Can you practice it accurately? of course not... there are too many variables.
Should you be taking these spots? Yes, definitely.
How wide can I call? You can use holdemresources to help you, it will differ in each situation. From the practice I have done so far (still doing it daily), the %change is usually +-5-8% (in a range).

---

In practical terms, you will probably start calling slightly wider than you were previously.

We already know that ICM is just an educated guess. Once people started thinking about FGS we know that having the big stack is crucial to steady equity gains so an ICM equilibrium will probably be skewed towards preserving that stack or trying to get it.

Please remember that this is only in equilibrium. If you put an exploitable opponent in the mix (bad reg? fish? guy sitting out?), this will affect your decisions much more than any small FGS adjustments.

---

Note: I have not done extensive mathematical work on this, my ideas come from logic brainstorming and a few hours with holdemresources/FGS video etc....
I am looking at this from a more practical/experience viewpoint.

Please correct me/enter discussion if you disagree.

Quote