I didn't understand any of this really :/

Download open office and try yourself. You can only learn it by trying the math some by hand (imo).

probably still worth of bump

btw. If any1 can confirm if I make right calculation for chipEVbreakeven in HAND 1
(PW*chipswon)+(PL*chipslost)=chipEV
(0.6511*11310)+(0.3489*5410)=chipEVbreakeven
chipEVbreakeven=7363.941+1887.549= +9241.49 chips

No, breakeven cev is by definition how much your Prob(win) needs to be inorder for cev to =0

You have the equation right kinda, but will be this...

( PW * chips won ) + ( PL * chips lost) = 0

Since
PW = 1 - PL
you substitute that for PL. Also chips lost are always negative.
The result is a % and thats what % u have to have to break even chip ev.

We already get PW% for this example (check OP post in hand1) I just wanted to know what the numbers will be for chipEVbreakeven for same hand.

Yeah I did mistake with negative CL number,it should be good now;
(PW*chipswon)+(PL*chipslost)=chipEV
(0.6511*11310)+(0.3489*-5410)=chipEVbreakeven
chipEVbreakeven=7363.941-1887.549= +5476.392 chips

Does it mean we need >13.7bbEV/100 according ICM to make this call +EV?

What you are calculating appears to be the difference between what you had prior to calling and what you will have after calling, on average.

This is NOT the breakeven point. I feel, that you either missunderstand the concept of the breakeven point or you are simply looking for something different.

Basically in your calculation, you have the Values: PW, PL, CW & CL, all defined, leaving only the result open. This result is simply the difference in chips prior to the action to after the action or can also be the difference between Calling and Folding, for example.

If you want to calculate the Breakeven-point, you are not looking for the result. The result is 0. That is the deffinition of the breakeven-point, the point where we neither lose nor win any chips.

I actually said that wrong. Because you might already start to realise, that you dont calculate the Breakeven-point, but rather what a certain value has to be in order to reach the break-even point.

So if you do a breakeven calculation for the first Hand, what you are looking for is: How often do I have to win in order break-even?

Or the values you got are: CW, CL & Result. What you lack is the % you win/lose. Meaning your calculation will look like this:

(x*11310)-((1-x)*5410) = 0

So, you solve for the x, which will give you the % you win aswell as the % you lose. Which you will then call the break-even point.

yeah probably I misunderstand the concept of breakeven point (its true that it should be 0) or I might named named it wrong (formula) but what I was really looking for is what will be ''starting point'' in chipEV to make our call profitable/+ev.

If we already know that we need >65.11% equity in this hand, then with given hand we can also calculate how much we'll win/lose in chipEV here if we call with AKo or find ''breakeven line!?

Hello! (I use an online translator).

Now I understand why "2+2" has a good reputation, good job guys.

Your formulas help me a lot "iFoldPkt0nes", I have them in excel to calculate easy, but you said something about calculating the "Push in ICM". I copy your words since I can't quote

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Someone asked about a formula for when you are shoving instead of calling. Unfortunately, situations where you are shoving are less straight forward. There is one case where you can get a simplified formula however. This will only work when there is only one possible caller (e.g. BvB) and when EQ_Lose = 0 (i.e. you have the smaller stack size).

P_Win > ( EQ_Fold - EQ_Steal*P_Steal ) / ( EQ_Win*(1 - P_Steal) )
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(i can think, if there was a way to add "EQ_Lose" to the formula, it could be fixed)

After several hours and simulations, with different bubble factor, players, stacks, fold equity (P_Steal), etc. I don't think it makes sense how it works.

I understand that "EQ_Lose =0" means that we have a lot of "bubble factor", but it is that "P_Steal" hardly affects the result ">P_Win", except for more than 80% of "P_Steal", but then the rank of the opponent is strong and asks us for a lot of equity. In conclusion, in certain simulations the push range with "P_Steal" was more closed (often QQ+) than the range to call for an allin of the rival.... WITHOUT "P_Steal" !

The question then, let's say we're on the final table, on ICM, SB vs BB, or playing postflop only vs 1 opponent.

What would the formula be like to calculate if pushing preflop/postflop is profitable?

Thank you very much in advance to whoever responds!!

(EQ_Steal*P_Steal) + (EQ_Win*((1-P_Steal)*P_Win)) - (EQ_Lose*((1-P_Steal)*(1-P_Win))) = EQ_Shove

If EQ_Shove > EQ_Fold, shoving is profitable.

Its the same calculation for Pre and Postflop.
Hope this helps!

Wow! Thank you very much for your quick and complex response!
I am sorry to steal your time and I deeply appreciate you taking care of me!!

Unfortunately, I think something doesn't work, maybe I was wrong with the calculations, I don't know :S

You formula and the classic formula, have different results after calculating the same "spot" (call vs shove from the opponent). That is, for this imaginary hand, the values of "P_Steal" and "EQ_Steal" in your formula do not matter.

Classic formula (also published at the beginning of this thread).
(EQ_Fold - EQ_Lose) / (EQ_Win - EQ_Lose) = EQ_ICM

Ronny formula: (in the end, I subtracted "EQ_Fold", to know if the result is profitable, I know this is not the problem):
(EQ_Steal*P_Steal) + (EQ_Win*((1-P_Steal)*P_Win)) - (EQ_Lose*((1-P_Steal)*(1-P_Win))) - EQ_Fold = EQ_Shove (If I'm not mistaken, it's actually "EQ_Shove" equals "EQ_ICM" because I subtracted "EQ_Fold")

So as I say, i think that by calculating the same situation (spot) where the values "P_Steal" or "EQ_Steal" don't matter in your formula, both formulas should give the same result, but it's not. What am I wrong about?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++

Attached photo, https://prnt.sc/qcrewh
From my calculators in excel (I know that those formulas are correct to each other, except yours formula, matches the other formulas and with the EV in ICM make CALL that says HOLDEMRESOURCES).

Summary of Variables:
-EQ_Fold = 35.19
-EQ_Lose = 17.38
-EQ_Win = 43.5
-P_Win = 55.35% (Equity in favour).
-EQ_Steal and Fold Equity = 0 (since we're paying, but you can add any value to "EQ_Steal" which will always be 0, as long as Fold Equity is also 0, and in any case it doesn't change the result too much).

The results of the calculations:
-FB = 2.14
-CDC = 53.34%
-Nº1 Formula) EQ_ICM = 55.35% Minimum Equity to Call.
-Nº2 Formula) EQ_ICM = 55.35% Minimum Equity to Call.
-Nº3 Formula) EV/BB ICM = 0 (Break even, since I put 55.35% Equity).
Formula Ronny (your formula) = -15,52 ¡¡IMPORTANT!! Your formula should yield a result of 0 (since we have 55.35% of "P_Win", which is the minimum need according to the formulas "No.1, No2, and No3"). I guess it's my mistake.

Legend:
-EQ_Win = $ The chips are worth when you win
-EQ_Lose = $ Worth chips when you lose
-EQ_Fold = $ The chips are worth when you're
-EQ_Steal = $ Worth chips when you steal
-EQ_Shove = $ Is the chips valid when Shove
-EQ_ICM = $ Final Profit (compared to the rest of moves)
-P_Win (Equity in favor) = Our %Equity in favor (divided by 100 for Excel)
-P_Lose (Equity against) = Our %Equity against (divided by 100 for Excel)
-P_Steal and %Fold Equity (divide by 100 for Excel)

PS: After simulating several hands with the "Ronny formula", you would think that the Fold Equity and the "P_Win" (Equity favor) are not too important, what really affects the result are the values of "EQ_X", which makes a lot of sense to me, but it doesn't seem to work well on the example set out, where the result is "-15,52" instead of the right one that would be "0". I don't know where I'm wrong!

I'M SORRY I WROTE SO MUCH! I CANNOT SLEEP TRYING TO MANUALLY CALCULATE THE PUSH IN ICM

Attached photo v2 https://prnt.sc/qcruad

I just simulated a spot with FB 1, 90% Fold Equity and 40% Equity, but according your formula (I'm sure I'm wrong xD) the moving is still slightly negative, so this may not be well

EQ_Win = 30
EQ_Fold = 25
EQ_Lose = 20
EQ_Steal = 27.5
P_Steal = 90%
P_Win = 40%
RESULT EQ_ICM = -0.25

I'm sorry I'm so heavy

In case it helps, someone said in a thread, that this formula could be added the "Fold Equity", but he did not explain how and it was years ago (I asked there but no one answered). The formula is classic and works perfectly when you're up against an opponent's allin, but I wouldn't know if it's possible to add the "Fold Equity"

maybe you know how to solve it:
(Blinds for Call * FB) / (Pot before Call + (Blinds for Call * FB))