Yes its +cEV, but it's not so clear cut in $ev. Depends on calling ranges obviously, but it's close-ish. Again, I don't necessarily think a jam is bad but it doesn't really matter if it's a +cEV play or not.
^^ that's not how ICM works. There are situations where the difference between $ev and cEV is negligible, and there are situations where the difference is massive. It's certainly not a constant, and saying that a play is enough cEV to make it $ev is misguided.
i haven't defined a "icm constant" if thats what u understood by my post
im trying to explain that folding 44 in this situation is meh and 44 is not a good hand for postflop and u can be reshoved by the big stack if he is icm aware and thats why i think this is a good jam here.
of course if a play nets u a massive profit in chips like jamming TT does make it $ev
anw im not a totalitarian i can be wrong this is just my opinion
Not becuase a play its +cEV u should take it and also doesnt mean there isnt a more optimall way to play a hand i say there´s no value on open pushing vs NIT/TAG villains cuz their calling ranges and their 3bet all in ranges (in the hipotheticall escenario if we open raise) are basically the same, so why risk the tournament when you´re getting the same profitability in terms of potential chips gain in the long run by r/f?
I disagree that their calling ranges are the same as their reshoving ranges. The BB apparently 'seems competent player 30/23' so if he is a decent reg he will be (and should be) attacking our btn minraise extremely aggressively with a wide range of hands, whereas he will most likely be calling relatively tight with these stack sizes. I think that for this particular hand the best play is to openshove.
Two Plus Two
Linear Mode
