$1.75 Turbo, 3 Players Left

[BenSavage 0]

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t800 (3 handed) Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)Button (t3116)Hero (t8824)BB (t15060)Preflop: Hero is SB with 5, 5. 1 fold, Hero raises to t8774, BB calls t7974.Flop: (t16848) 8, 7, A(2 players)Turn: (t16848) Q(2 players)River: (t16848) T(2 players)Final Pot: t16848

slightly -EV (-0.2%)

[copernicus 0]

Sorry, cop, but I'm still confused. From the perspective of the bigstack, doens't he have to evaluate the size of the shorter stack(s) relative to his own? If the shortstack pushes 2000 chips on the flop and his opponent is making a call/fold decision, how can he make such a decision independent of the size of his own stack? Any player will be more willing to call a stop-n-go or go-n-go from a shorter stack when the push represents only 20% of his own stack as opposed to, say, 75%. Thus, FE seems inevitably connected to the relative stack sizes, not just the effective stack size. Am I missing something here?

Villains "excess chips" when he has you outstacked might have some influence on his post-flop decisions, but unless youre at or nearing the bubble those decisions are almost entirely related to his EV (ie implied odds) for that hand, which depend only on the effective stack size. Around bubble time or in the payout structure when chip EV may vary from $ EV somewhat, and his stack size becomes more relevant.Villain's own stack size (when he has you covered) is much more important in the pre-flop decision process. ("Hero is shortstacked, if we wind up all in it costs me x% of my stack...and I will be shortstacked if I lose/I still have plenty of chips to play with", etc.)

[jmbreslin 0]

I think I've completely misunderstood fold equity, then. I always thought fold equity was directly related to relative stack sizes. I'm having a very hard time grasping how it is tied to implied odds rather than relative stacks. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding how implied odds are being applied here.Okay, here's part of the definition of FE from Wiki:"It becomes an important concept for short stacks for the following reason. Opponents can be considered likely to call all-ins with a certain range of hands. When they will have to use a large percentage of their stack to make the call, this range can be expected to be quite narrow (it will include all the hands the caller expects to win an all-in against the bettor). As the percentage of stack needed to call becomes lower, the range of cards the caller will need becomes wider, and he or she becomes less likely to fold. Consequently, fold equity diminishes. There will be a point at which a caller will need a sufficiently small percentage of their stack to call the all-in that they will do so with any two cards. At that point, the all-in bettor will have no fold equity."Doesn't this imply that fold equity is directly related to relative stack sizes, not just size of the shortstack?

[copernicus 0]

I think I've completely misunderstood fold equity, then. I always thought fold equity was directly related to relative stack sizes. I'm having a very hard time grasping how it is tied to implied odds rather than relative stacks. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding how implied odds are being applied here.Okay, here's part of the definition of FE from Wiki:"It becomes an important concept for short stacks for the following reason. Opponents can be considered likely to call all-ins with a certain range of hands. When they will have to use a large percentage of their stack to make the call, this range can be expected to be quite narrow (it will include all the hands the caller expects to win an all-in against the bettor). As the percentage of stack needed to call becomes lower, the range of cards the caller will need becomes wider, and he or she becomes less likely to fold. Consequently, fold equity diminishes. There will be a point at which a caller will need a sufficiently small percentage of their stack to call the all-in that they will do so with any two cards. At that point, the all-in bettor will have no fold equity."Doesn't this imply that fold equity is directly related to relative stack sizes, not just size of the shortstack?

That quote is re pre-flop decisions, which as I said above does have stack size implications. When talking about increasing FE on the flop for a stop and go or go and go, it is more related to implied odds given whatever villain has flopped and his read on your range. Clearly a huge stack will call more loosely and one barely in excess of yours may call more tightly, the focus of the decision should be much more EV related than stack size related. Nearing the bubble stack size may become a more important consideration but it is a consideration because $EV is related to stack size where tEV isnt.

[jmbreslin 0]

Actually, no, the example they give (which I didn't cut-and-paste) was for a flop decision. Here it is:"Example Alice holds A6. She is heads up with Brian, who holds 22. The flop is 973 with no cards of the same suit. Alice has pot equity of 31.5% Brian has pot equity of 68.5% (In other words, if there was no further betting, and the players simply turned up their hands and were dealt the turn and river, Alice is 31.5% likely to win.) If Brian is 70% likely to fold, Alice's fold equity is 47.95% (68.5 x .7). Consequently, Alice can consider that her hand equity if she bets will equal 31.5 + 47.95%, almost 80%."Is this just wrong?I do think I finally understand what you're saying, though. The reason implied odds are more important than relative stack size on the flop is because villain's hand will be more defined at that point, depending on how and whether he connects with the flop, and Hero's will also be more defined given the range villain assigned him PF. At that point the size of Hero's push relative to villain's stack becomes almost irrelevant; what is relevant is whether villain connected and, if he did connect well, his implied odds given the size of Hero's stack. In the example I posted it makes no difference whether I push 2100 or 6100 on the flop because the flop hit villain pretty hard.So the conclusion from this is that opponent stack sizes are irrelevant to Hero's decision to pull a stop-n-go or go-n-go?

[copernicus 0]

Actually, no, the example they give (which I didn't cut-and-paste) was for a flop decision. Here it is:"Example Alice holds A6. She is heads up with Brian, who holds 22. The flop is 973 with no cards of the same suit. Alice has pot equity of 31.5% Brian has pot equity of 68.5% (In other words, if there was no further betting, and the players simply turned up their hands and were dealt the turn and river, Alice is 31.5% likely to win.) If Brian is 70% likely to fold, Alice's fold equity is 47.95% (68.5 x .7). Consequently, Alice can consider that her hand equity if she bets will equal 31.5 + 47.95%, almost 80%."Is this just wrong?I do think I finally understand what you're saying, though. The reason implied odds are more important than relative stack size on the flop is because villain's hand will be more defined at that point, depending on how and whether he connects with the flop, and Hero's will also be more defined given the range villain assigned him PF. At that point the size of Hero's push relative to villain's stack becomes almost irrelevant; what is relevant is whether villain connected and, if he did connect well, his implied odds given the size of Hero's stack. In the example I posted it makes no difference whether I push 2100 or 6100 on the flop because the flop hit villain pretty hard.So the conclusion from this is that opponent stack sizes are irrelevant to Hero's decision to pull a stop-n-go or go-n-go?

the example is correct, I think the issue is how much does stack size enter into the assessment that Brian is 70% likely to fold, which I would expect to be minimal impact.WRT the last question, I "irrelevant" is too strong, especially in the extreme situations (where hes huge enough compared to you that you arent like to have much fold equity pre or post flop, or where he barely covers you and youre both small enough that theres no FE post flop). In general though I dont think how much he covers you by is a major consideration.

[jmbreslin 0]

Okay, makes sense now.