Help with Equity Calculator Results please

[T_Mar]

Had few days off work this week, so decided to stop being so lazy and actually put some work into my game - Early NY resolution

I've been carrying out some EV calcs using a Shove Equity Calculator and although I have nice result telling me I make X amount of chips by shoving all in I'm trying to work out if the gain is worth the risk (of potentially busting).  Is there certain '% add to stack value' that people generally use a guide in these situations???

I appreciate that just because shoving maybe +EV it may not be most optimal line, but imagine there must be apoint where you add so much to stack that its a no brainer?!

For example if my Net profit on average is 2000chips and I have to risk 20000 to realise that, is 10% gain enough to justify sticking it in??

Maybe relevant, maybe not but does the Villians expected gain have any correlation to this question?? (the tool I am using gives a value for hero and villain) - So if hero EV is +2000 chips and villians EV is +3000 chips is that giving me the answer I need?

Any help appreciated... Ta


 

[SuuPRlim]

net profit on average = 2000 chips but you've got to risk 20,000 dont forget this takes into account th times you get all in and lose.

Need to remember these calcs show you the chipEV calculation so you'll be making tournament chips by making X play, it DOESN'T show you the results in $ EV (how much actualy $ you make in equity) as that calculation is massively dependant on a lot of variables outside of the hand (mostly what stage of the tournament you're at) this is all ICM and something I know abso nothing about so can't help any further.

WOrth noting that most of the time something is chipEV+ it'll be $EV+ as well but certainly isn't the case all the time (most notably at the start and around the bubble in tournaments afaik)

Longy/MC/Monda/Bram culd tell you better than me

[T_Mar]

thks.. yeah I get difference between $EV and cEV, and that the result takes into account the times you lose.  Maybe its not an issue, but I was trying to work out when even though a move is +cEV its not worth the risk of busting - ie The gain is too small.  Maybe it cant be quantified?!

[Longy]

I pretty much take any spot that is +ev, though I tend to not worry too much about spots where my edge is less than a small blind.

Obviously what edge you are prepared to take depends on circumstances. The most obvious being when +cEV isn't necessarily proportional to +$EV, so on the bubble of tournaments and deep in the money when laddering is preferable to gaining x amount of chips.

Another example might be at the start of a tournament with a slow structure where you have a big edge. An over simplified example being voluntarily taking a flip in the 1st level of WSOP ME. Tbh the vast majority of players over estimate their edge in these spots imo and should be taking thinner edges than they do.

[T_Mar]

So it doesn't matter if we have to risk 100, 50, or 30bb, if the outcome is say +4bb its 'ok' to go with it?

I am probably over complicating things a little but have it my head that even if something is +cEV it may still be spewy depending on the amount we have to risk.

Its really when stacks beome deeper that it becomes relevant - but i'm trying not to fall into trap of thinking just because a play is +EV its ok... but maybe it is.

[rfgqqabc]

On my phone but will chip in. Can't we just measure this vs our ROI? I've never quite got this because surely saying anything below 30% isn't worth it for us is a mistake because our ROI comes from lots slightly plus ev spots. Hope that's clear

[Longy]

On my phone but will chip in. Can't we just measure this vs our ROI? I've never quite got this because surely saying anything below 30% isn't worth it for us is a mistake because our ROI comes from lots slightly plus ev spots. Hope that's clear

Your roi is made up not from one single pot a tournament and that is what we are analysing here. Your roi is an accumulation of small edges taken over many pots during a tournament.

[rfgqqabc]

On my phone but will chip in. Can't we just measure this vs our ROI? I've never quite got this because surely saying anything below 30% isn't worth it for us is a mistake because our ROI comes from lots slightly plus ev spots. Hope that's clear

Your roi is made up not from one single pot a tournament and that is what we are analysing here. Your roi is an accumulation of small edges taken over many pots during a tournament.

Yeah thats what i expressed so poorly.

Where is the line for this? Or just any +ev spot above like 2%? Does it vary according to icm? Even like 50 left in the mil 9%+spot?

[SuuPRlim]

So it doesn't matter if we have to risk 100, 50, or 30bb, if the outcome is say +4bb its 'ok' to go with it?

I am probably over complicating things a little but have it my head that even if something is +cEV it may still be spewy depending on the amount we have to risk.

Its really when stacks beome deeper that it becomes relevant - but i'm trying not to fall into trap of thinking just because a play is +EV its ok... but maybe it is.

if its +cEV and +$ev its nt spewy, if it's +cEV and - or 0$ev then chances are its spewy.

The diff between cEV and $ev is basically what you are saying, when a move in a tournament makes you chips but costs you actual money. As far as what needs to be a net gain in terms of cEV to make it a "worthwhile" play you'd be surprised how small most cEV edges are, if you're risking 30big blinds chips then basically the only way to gte having a +15big blinds return is for your opponent to calling 100% of the time and never have more than 25% equity and those spots are rare to un-heard off, and if that spot came up you certainly wouldn't need to analyses it