What I think is an extremely complex decision

[rfgqqabc]

I have  a 30% roi in the big 109. This is taken as a "concrete" fact.

I have a 5% edge shoving the button with K9o  with 12bb. Do I take the 5% edge. Will it hamper my overall long term roi? In theory, if I took every spot that was plus ev my roi might be lower than someone who only took 20%+ roi spots. How do we decide on that? What spots are too marginal too take and when/how/why do we decide to take the spot? I mean in a certain tournament you could make a 20% roi + play and it would never matter if you'd finalled a particularly big Sunday Millions for example.

[rfgqqabc]

I have  a 30% roi in the big 109. This is taken as a "concrete" fact.

I have a 5% edge shoving the button with K9o  with 12bb. Do I take the 5% edge. Will it hamper my overall long term roi? In theory, if I took every spot that was plus ev my roi might be lower than someone who only took 20%+ roi spots. How do we decide on that? What spots are too marginal too take and when/how/why do we decide to take the spot? I mean in a certain tournament you could make a 20% roi + play and it would never matter if you'd finalled a particularly big Sunday Millions for example.

This could be really obvious but to me it seems someone who makes many 5% positive roi decisions needs a much higher ratio than someone who takes less to compensate for the roi lost in these pots. However, taking 5 5% positive roi spots is probably bigger than a single 30% spot because we gain a culminative edge over time.

[david3103]

Is this about quantifying the 'fold, there will be better spots in a field where you have an edge' issue?
 
Or a brag about having a proven 30% ROI? 

[Doobs]

I have  a 30% roi in the big 109. This is taken as a "concrete" fact.

I have a 5% edge shoving the button with K9o  with 12bb. Do I take the 5% edge. Will it hamper my overall long term roi? In theory, if I took every spot that was plus ev my roi might be lower than someone who only took 20%+ roi spots. How do we decide on that? What spots are too marginal too take and when/how/why do we decide to take the spot? I mean in a certain tournament you could make a 20% roi + play and it would never matter if you'd finalled a particularly big Sunday Millions for example.

This could be really obvious but to me it seems someone who makes many 5% positive roi decisions needs a much higher ratio than someone who takes less to compensate for the roi lost in these pots. However, taking 5 5% positive roi spots is probably bigger than a single 30% spot because we gain a culminative edge over time.

I don't know the correct answer but I feel you should take small edges as they are all part of the reason you have a 30% ROI. 

Sure you have done the maths here, but feels like they call with everything that beats you and nothing way behind.  If they are likely to call near perfect vs you here doesn't ICM become a problem for you as well as him?  Though if your 5% edge is including ICM then I am talking bollocks. 

Isn't it better to take the marginal spots from early position, as people are far more likely to make a mistake vs an early position raise and the blinds get you soon anyway?  Am talking off the top of my head here and can't promise a lot of thought.

[redarmi]

I have  a 30% roi in the big 109. This is taken as a "concrete" fact.

I have a 5% edge shoving the button with K9o  with 12bb. Do I take the 5% edge. Will it hamper my overall long term roi? In theory, if I took every spot that was plus ev my roi might be lower than someone who only took 20%+ roi spots. How do we decide on that? What spots are too marginal too take and when/how/why do we decide to take the spot? I mean in a certain tournament you could make a 20% roi + play and it would never matter if you'd finalled a particularly big Sunday Millions for example.

This could be really obvious but to me it seems someone who makes many 5% positive roi decisions needs a much higher ratio than someone who takes less to compensate for the roi lost in these pots. However, taking 5 5% positive roi spots is probably bigger than a single 30% spot because we gain a culminative edge over time.

I don't know the correct answer but I feel you should take small edges as they are all part of the reason you have a 30% ROI. 

Sure you have done the maths here, but feels like they call with everything that beats you and nothing way behind.  If they are likely to call near perfect vs you here doesn't ICM become a problem for you as well as him?  Though if your 5% edge is including ICM then I am talking bollocks. 

Isn't it better to take the marginal spots from early position, as people are far more likely to make a mistake vs an early position raise and the blinds get you soon anyway?  Am talking off the top of my head here and can't promise a lot of thought.

Think Doobs is right.  The reason you have a 30% ROI is a blend of all the decisions you take and you can't really look at individual decisions in a vacuum.  For example the fact that you will shove that will mean you are more likely to get called when you have very high EV spots which adds to your overall EV.  If that makes sense?  Also you can take this too far and only play spots where you have the stone cold nuts but that doesn't mean you will have a higher ROI because you become more exploitable.

[youthnkzR]

Im gonna try word this as best as I can, although I know its not gonna come out the way I mean it in my head.

5% edge in individual spots doesn't = 5% ROI..

Surely as one of the better players in the field, you have so much more edge at greater stack depth, and therefore this will make up for you taking less of an edge at a smaller stack depth where it is harder to have much of an edge at all - even as one of the better players - due to things e.g. single blinds / antes being more significant to your stack then to those with bigger stacks (in other words we have to make something happen before blinds / antes cripple us), also having less fold equity...etc its not like with 12bbs you can really wait for a spot with a bigger 'edge' than 5% (especially with blinds increasing fast in this MTT - 10 min clock), whereas you could if you had say 40bbs.

^ I know what I mean even if u don't

[Jon MW]

Isn't it an ICM decision - even when the actual ICM is incalculable?

i.e. if you have a 5% edge in a hand it's correct to take it if it gives you a theoretical extra 5% of prize money?

Near the beginning even a double up isn't going to do that so smaller edges should be folded, but later on they would so they should be taken?


I don't really understand ICM I might have got confused :|

[theprawnidentity]

I think I agree with what Ambler is saying.

5% is a huge edge from a 12bb stack.  The bigger our stack, the bigger our edge.  Therefore the shorter we get the more we must be willing to take every available opportunity to increase our stack and thus increase our edge.

[Flash92]

I think I agree with what Ambler is saying.

5% is a huge edge from a 12bb stack.  The bigger our stack, the bigger our edge.  Therefore the shorter we get the more we must be willing to take every available opportunity to increase our stack and thus increase our edge.

I think this a good way to look at the situation.

[rfgqqabc]

Im gonna try word this as best as I can, although I know its not gonna come out the way I mean it in my head.

5% edge in individual spots doesn't = 5% ROI..

Surely as one of the better players in the field, you have so much more edge at greater stack depth, and therefore this will make up for you taking less of an edge at a smaller stack depth where it is harder to have much of an edge at all - even as one of the better players - due to things e.g. single blinds / antes being more significant to your stack then to those with bigger stacks (in other words we have to make something happen before blinds / antes cripple us), also having less fold equity...etc its not like with 12bbs you can really wait for a spot with a bigger 'edge' than 5% (especially with blinds increasing fast in this MTT - 10 min clock), whereas you could if you had say 40bbs.

^ I know what I mean even if u don't

Yeah I'm kind of there. Its sort of a question about tournament life or along those lines anyway. I just wanted a better understanding of what an roi is compromised of? It is hard to understand that taking more slightly positive but variance heavy spots will lead to a higher overall roi, even if the actual gains from that decision are less than the player would typically receive.

I made up the actual decision as it was more the theory behind it that I was interested in. The future implications had occurred to me but its still been/had been puzzling me for a while.

[BorntoBubble]

Is it not a case of not worrying about ROI though and worrying about $$ won?

If you worked in a cake shop and can buy and sell a cake at 5% ROI which does not affect any of the other cakes you are selling it will mean your $$$ profit increases even though that one cake may bring down your overall ROI.

This goes along side the spots where you have a cake that makes you 60% ROI again not affecting any other cakes in your business that brings up your ROI.

But then to compare the cake analogy to Tom's analogy occasionally by selling cakes at 5% ROI it attracts customers that will enable us to sell 10% cakes and so on and so forth.

This again makes sense to me but the words and the food analogy may not, although it probably will to tomsom.

[Doobs]

Mmmm cake

[titaniumbean]

Mmmm cake

this actually made me burst out laughing. I read it in homers voice . vvwp.

thats a 40% posting roi there minimum!

[AlexMartin]

I think I agree with what Ambler is saying.

5% is a huge edge from a 12bb stack.  The bigger our stack, the bigger our edge.  Therefore the shorter we get the more we must be willing to take every available opportunity to increase our stack and thus increase our edge.

+1 nice post

[theprawnidentity]

Tbf I do like cake.