Opinions Please

[gatso]

so pretty much we know we have zero fold equity , going all in is -ev .. so in cash bad but ok to take negative value in mtts?

hmmm good strategy...the positive ev that we will gain later in the game if we win this hand, outweighs the negative ev of the specific hand.

is that what you are saying when you mean jam?


by the way i agree to go all in. just thought mike deserved a answer why... although there are some in the against camp mike to this theory...

but you've decided that it's -ev by assigning an overly tight range to oppos, deciding we have no fe when we in fact do and doing the maths as if we were calling rather than pushing

I'd be interested to know why you agree with the allin even though you think it's -ev

[noble1]

as mike did the description of the villains and both called the rr i'm going to assume this bunch are not the most sophisticated... as i said if we rr all in and only get 1 caller [the re-raiser] we need him to fold more than 30% of the time ..
somehow i just get this feeling he will be married to his hand and as mike described him i think its quite reasonable to give villain a tight range of QQ+ AK..

as in previous reply -

.the positive ev that we will gain later in the game if we win this hand, outweighs the negative ev of the specific hand.

its nothing new - its the gigabet dilemma taken to the extreme - because everyone focuses on 1 situation at a time when it comes to working out if it is positive or negative value.. can we mathematically work out that if we double up that this will be +ev in future situations..hence i said extreme...
The stack size theory by giga allows for some to read it as having some sort of recovery size stack if we lose...
AND as i agree with him that a lot of players isolate there thoughts on each single situation as it comes up but forget that poker is as he puts it ''a stream of events'' it is not logical imo to be results oriented for one single hand/siyuation..