agree borin. there's no way of accounting for what might or might not happen with regard to other chipstacks and potential bounties. you can only evaluate the decision with regard to how things are now.
i don't know if the bounty changes things too much in general here. i think it would if your stack has a low £ value as it is. ie if you felt outclassed by the field and so felt you had little claim to the main prizepool. likewise if your stack was so big that losing 3bbs would make little impact on your stack's £ value then it might be +ev to call v his range as the bounty would make up for the tiny £ loss.
when you have a reasonable stack and a reasonable claim to the main prize pool i don't know how much extra value the bounty gives you. that equation will give an idea in raw EV, but as you say there are other considerations.
I know there is probably a right answer maths wise but there are always times when a +ev move isnt neccasarily the right move.
For example folding AA preflop in a satilite on the bubble when there is other short stacks is considered the right thing to do even though in MTT's you would never fold. I think this is just one of those situations you can justify calling as you have so many things in your favour. If you lose your still 2nd in chips so doesnt effect you chace of taking other bounties/maximising the chance to gain chips. It is a chance to break the bubble, take a bounty AND cash. So its not just the £9+ but also the min cash (about £12ish I would guess?) that you would make also if your hand won not to mention the chips you would gain.
As I said before it also gives you a loose image that cant be discounted later on by the chips you can win by people being more reluctant to fight back if your percieved folding range is so wide. You have a chance to get more walks and more chance of stealing the blinds with less resisitence.
There can never be an argument for making a -EV decision. EV takes into account all the things which cEV sometimes doesn't. So while there may be +cEV situations that are -EV, there can be no argument that a -EV decision can be profitable because EV and profitability mean the same thing.
Teddy, we can't view this as being an isolated situation. We don't know what will happen regarding the other bounties and the prize pool in this particular tournament, but we do know that those bounties are out there and, taking a long-term view, they will always be out there. This isn't the only bounty hunter tournament we'll play, after all. Even if it was, we'd still need to take the most long-term +EV decisions because those are also the most short-term +EV decisions.
If we're going to add the bounty to the value of the call, we have to add the possibility of the future bounty opportunities to the value of the fold. If we don't account for that at some point in the equation, the equation is incomplete. That ought to exactly cancel out the value of this particular bounty, in the long-term... (once again I'll say 'I think')
The value of making the cash also shouldn't figure in the value of the call as folding does nothing to rule that out.
how did villain drop to this stack size? i'd suggest villain isnt a good/aggressive reg if hes been short for a while. the fact hes turned up with AKs here may be suggestive villain isn't shoving anywhere close to the % that he profitably can. Posted by NColley
He hadn't blinded down, he'd been playing a loose/aggresive style.
I doubled off him in a big three-way pot two hands before (with a shortie aipf he bluff/shoved at a K95 all clubs flop with A5 both spades, I hero called and held with QQ including Qc).
In the hand inbetween he folded his BB to the other guys limp/bet after I'd open-folded Q5o on the button. So this was only his second hand when super-short.
Teddy, we can't view this as being an isolated situation. We don't know what will happen regarding the other bounties and the prize pool in this particular tournament, but we do know that those bounties are out there and, taking a long-term view, they will always be out there. This isn't the only bounty hunter tournament we'll play, after all. Even if it was, we'd still need to take the most long-term +EV decisions because those are also the most short-term +EV decisions. If we're going to add the bounty to the value of the call, we have to add the possibility of the future bounty opportunities to the value of the fold. If we don't account for that at some point in the equation, the equation is incomplete. That ought to exactly cancel out the value of this particular bounty, in the long-term... (once again I'll say 'I think') The value of making the cash also shouldn't figure in the value of the call as folding does nothing to rule that out. Posted by BorinLoner
i was agreeing with you borin. we can only take the situation in isolation and that imposes limitations. as an aside though there are unknown consequences to any decision we make at the table. if we have a marginally +cev spot with the best player in the tournament who is shortstacked, should we start calculating the ev of knocking him out v the ev of doubling him up? should we start to think of the effects of the effects of our decisions? i think there is a cut off, and just looking at raw ev does give us a pretty good guide of what is good in general.
the value of making the cash, however should always be taken into account as this is the whole point of ICM modeling [excuse the pleonism] in any tournament decision, be it a DYM, STT or MTT. our decisions are based around what makes us the most money. what wins us the most chips and what wins us the most money may not be the same thing.
When we evaluate our current stack's monetary worth we are effectively estimating our chances of cashing and for how much if we fold. We can similarly estimate what our stack's monetary worth would be if we call and win and call and lose. once weighted for equity v opponents range, if the ICMev of folding is greater than the ICMev of calling then we fold.
bounties complicate matters and i attempted a crude way of factoring them in, but as you say it may be pointless as we cannot factor in other potential bounties / consequences.
sorry haven't read all the posts, too many words, although i'm sure there is a lot of sense in everyones comments as usual
the reason is that i don't give the head that much value. why? because on the 3 handed table we are probably 50/50 to take the head anyway, so let's wait for a better position. also by doubling him up you increase the chance that the 2nd shortie is the next one out and so his potential value to you is less. and it makes it more painful to lose the next flip against him. so given we have absolute junk no need to be a hero, the only big beneficiaries of which will be one of the shorties.
My view: when we start half our buy in is for our bounty, the other half for chips... Therefor our 2k stack is worth £5... So if someone shoves for 2k we should treat it like a 3.5k stack (25% of the bounty gets added to our head instead of our pocket), that we only have to call 2k to win.
If someone shoves we should be calling lighter than usual vs the villains shoving range.
In this case the bounty is worth around 3.5k chips (roughly)... So we have to call 2600 for a 9.5k pot effectively. Obv you have to consider ICM too, but It's a call in my book as losing wont effect our ICM value much.
Thanks to all who have posted, there's been great input on this thread. What initially appears to be a trivial decision is actually quite complex.
I still prefer a call.
My stack is big enough to take this small hit with only a minimal impact on my chances of winning the tournament. Also I'm keen to get to final table sooner rather than later because the chipleader is using the bubble dynamic to run over three short stacks on the other table. The arrival of second and third in chips on his table will put a stop to that. Those three head-prizes will become available to me too, they aren't available while they're on the other table. Lets say I get dealt a premium in the next hand, I'm much more likely to get paid at final table with three shorties ready to double or bust post-bubble than I am at this three-handed table.
If villian is shoving 66% we're 33.3% v 66.7%. We're getting over 2/1 to call, we have a 33.3% chance of collecting villians bounty of £9+ and IF we lose, it has little impact upon our stack. We also have the advantage of going to final table and stopping the other big stack from manipulating the bubble (as already been mentioned). With all of these factors, I just fail to see why folding would be the 'better' option here.
The times we lose here, just how much value of our stack is lost in monetary terms? I think you will find it will certainly be far less than the £9 we stand to gain if we win not to mention the added chips and added value to our stack, thus making it a +EV call all day long.
Oh and fwiw IF villian was a complete nit and was only shoving any PP, any A or any broadway we would still be 30.3% to win.
Also take a look at this range 16.9%: 55+,A5s+,KJs+,A7o+,KJo+,QJo and yet we would still be 28.5%!
Guys, we're talking of like a 5% EV difference from a wide to nit shoving range. Sorry, but good luck to you if you can ever find a fold here.
Comments
i don't know if the bounty changes things too much in general here. i think it would if your stack has a low £ value as it is. ie if you felt outclassed by the field and so felt you had little claim to the main prizepool. likewise if your stack was so big that losing 3bbs would make little impact on your stack's £ value then it might be +ev to call v his range as the bounty would make up for the tiny £ loss.
when you have a reasonable stack and a reasonable claim to the main prize pool i don't know how much extra value the bounty gives you. that equation will give an idea in raw EV, but as you say there are other considerations.
Teddy, we can't view this as being an isolated situation. We don't know what will happen regarding the other bounties and the prize pool in this particular tournament, but we do know that those bounties are out there and, taking a long-term view, they will always be out there. This isn't the only bounty hunter tournament we'll play, after all. Even if it was, we'd still need to take the most long-term +EV decisions because those are also the most short-term +EV decisions.
If we're going to add the bounty to the value of the call, we have to add the possibility of the future bounty opportunities to the value of the fold. If we don't account for that at some point in the equation, the equation is incomplete. That ought to exactly cancel out the value of this particular bounty, in the long-term... (once again I'll say 'I think')
The value of making the cash also shouldn't figure in the value of the call as folding does nothing to rule that out.
I doubled off him in a big three-way pot two hands before (with a shortie aipf he bluff/shoved at a K95 all clubs flop with A5 both spades, I hero called and held with QQ including Qc).
In the hand inbetween he folded his BB to the other guys limp/bet after I'd open-folded Q5o on the button. So this was only his second hand when super-short.
Two hands before;
the value of making the cash, however should always be taken into account as this is the whole point of ICM modeling [excuse the pleonism] in any tournament decision, be it a DYM, STT or MTT. our decisions are based around what makes us the most money. what wins us the most chips and what wins us the most money may not be the same thing.
When we evaluate our current stack's monetary worth we are effectively estimating our chances of cashing and for how much if we fold. We can similarly estimate what our stack's monetary worth would be if we call and win and call and lose. once weighted for equity v opponents range, if the ICMev of folding is greater than the ICMev of calling then we fold.
bounties complicate matters and i attempted a crude way of factoring them in, but as you say it may be pointless as we cannot factor in other potential bounties / consequences.
enjoyed trying to work it out though.
I still prefer a call.
My stack is big enough to take this small hit with only a minimal impact on my chances of winning the tournament. Also I'm keen to get to final table sooner rather than later because the chipleader is using the bubble dynamic to run over three short stacks on the other table. The arrival of second and third in chips on his table will put a stop to that. Those three head-prizes will become available to me too, they aren't available while they're on the other table. Lets say I get dealt a premium in the next hand, I'm much more likely to get paid at final table with three shorties ready to double or bust post-bubble than I am at this three-handed table.
The times we lose here, just how much value of our stack is lost in monetary terms? I think you will find it will certainly be far less than the £9 we stand to gain if we win not to mention the added chips and added value to our stack, thus making it a +EV call all day long.
Oh and fwiw IF villian was a complete nit and was only shoving any PP, any A or any broadway we would still be 30.3% to win.
Also take a look at this range 16.9%: 55+,A5s+,KJs+,A7o+,KJo+,QJo and yet we would still be 28.5%!
Guys, we're talking of like a 5% EV difference from a wide to nit shoving range. Sorry, but good luck to you if you can ever find a fold here.
without that my initial comments stand