I mean this feels kinda like religion vs science. You can keep saying call, but if you provide no evidence that it's better you're not going to convince me.

I think ppl here are kinda losing a point.. Folding here doesn't mean giving up on the tournament. Im just giving up on a 33% chance of getting $0 to the 100% of min cashing about $350, and doubling up to 13BB right now doesn't change too much my chances of winning the tournament as ppl are saying. I think it could be probably better to gii after the bubble w/ less equity like 40-30% for the chance to double up and go ftw.

It seems like, but I didnt start this thread just because I was tillted for losing the hand and bubbling, I really thought it was a close spot at the time and could not fold (as everybody know its really hard to fold this in game). After a week I thought it was a fold, but was still not sure, then I started the thread

If you win, you have 15xBB. If you fold, you have 6xBB.

I would analyze it as a close spot. Some people seem to be like clear fold at the beginning and others call and play to win. Think some people are taking an emotional approach to this and not thinking it through.

Lol @shoutouts that most winning players would snap this, even when guys like pads, vingtcent, lissi stinkt etc all suggested it's a pretty ez fold

Perhaps guys like ismo seppo or huii, but hey they don't care about icm in the slightest and are making so much bad decisions (towards the bubble) because they win more than they really deserve, and therefore don't find it necesarry to have a closer look at their game

These are the type of guys I want at my final tables when I'm short stacked and card dead.

To all those referencing ICM, LOL. ICM doesn't even really apply here (283 players left). ICM is really a final table calculation, I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply when there is 283 players and min-cashing. In fact, ICM was originally thought of as a sit-n-go tool, and has been modified/adapted to handle more than 1 table, but 283 players left, ICM is useless.

I wouldn't use ICM software tools. I don't think they work that well in MTTs with just 2 tables left, but not everyone agrees.

However, in this case, the mincash is a lot greater than the equity your stack has in higher place finishes. That is why I was using a similar approach to ICM, looking at $ value of different stack sizes.

this

I don't think winning players are snap doing anything here.

The 65% of the time we win, we win 18k * $200/10000 * .78 = $280 (because 22% of the prize pool is off the table after the min cash). If we lose, we lose 11.5k * .78 * $200/10000 + $341 = $575. $280 *.657 - $575 *.343 = -$14, so folding is slightly better.

It's still there though, particularly on the money bubble it's as big as it's going to get until there's about 16 people left.

That looks about right, and is similar to my calculation showing it is very close. We win 67% not 65% though of the time with AK soooted.

Yea if you have 1.5 antes gotta click it in utg+1 here with k5o cuz ICM to hate $

+ increase in future (fold-)equity

^ that looks pretty close to right. i'd be curious to know though what software you use for that. icmizer calculations are limited to like situations involving 60 or so players.

^^^ How did you calculate that...don't you need the exact number of places paid and entire payout structure?

I assume it is based on assuming you have a share of the remaining prize pool after the mincash in proportion to the number of chips you have. I and another poster got similar answers to that poster that it is extremely close. The assumptions are of course not totally accurate and there are other factors.

Yeah I guess it's a lot closer than I thought. I guess a little deviation in stack sizes could make that a fold or a call. Although I think in that exact moment I always fold because you can't exactly call which is the right decision and if it's that close I don't mind folding to lower variance and I assume a jump as little as 0.5 bb will make it a fold anyhow.

i know you guys are saying the math shows this is close if not leaning towards a fold...and I have to disagree and say its a clear call.

there are so many other factors involved, things like regs/metagame/fold equity, that IMO easily push this towards being a call....if your making these sort of folds people are going to exploit the **** outta you especially on bubbles. not to mention you will probably never see a better spot than this all tournament with a shortstack.

you have to think of the long term consequences of folding these sort of spots as well...yes it might be the slightly more +EV thing to do in the short term(ie. that particular tournament), but in the long run you probably missing out on a bunch of great spots to double up and start a deep run.

^^^^ EV isn't short run??? what are you talking about.

Second: Mathematically shortstacks allow big stacks to take advantage of them on the bubble because they simple have to and it is to their benefit to not fight back light...People who ignore ICM, and bubble factors are just volatile and after top places, and I dont mean top place money etc, they just have a desire to make super deep runs/get in the big money and are actually thinking short run more than the ones that fold.


People with short stacks who are not necessarily fighting back and understand their stack disadvantage aswell as their $EV, put their pride aside to make the most $$$ in the long run, compared to the some who just want the top spots for glory and acknowledgement.

If you want to make money, its a constant $EV spot, not always about ignoring bubble factors and making top money.

You have to stop comparing yourself to TV stars who are more paid on fame, so it is +EV for them to give up tournament $EV in spots since they gain alot more wealth and respect from deeper runs and media, which at the end of the day makes it +EV for them to not care about final table bubbles, and represent a carefree image

do you mean the absolute lack of prove for microevolution?

lol...

the EV of folding a close spot like this just to make sure you mincash a SINGLE tournament is certainly short-term; it only considers the implications of that hand and ignores what will happen afterwards.

in the long run if you are folding so tight on the bubble that your folding AKs in a spot like this....you will basically be swapping a higher ITM % for a much lower FT % and so on.

nobody in the history of poker has made a living grinding large field MTTs and mincashing like a boss....

i understand the math, several people have posted the reasons for a fold....but they basiclly only considered 2 outcomes:
(A) what happens when you fold here and secure a cash.
(B) what happens when you call here, lose the hand and bubble the tournament.

anyone who plays MTTs should understand this is a rather shortsighted view of the spot....what about when we(from most likely to least likely):
(C) call, double up and make a deeper run for a larger cash
(D) call, double up but only make a mincash anyways
(E) fold, secure the mincash but then shove our tiny stack with no FE and loose a few hands later
(F) call, double up and turn a deep run into a huge score
(G) fold, but still end up bubbling
(H) fold, make it ITM and run like god and bink a huge score anyways
(I) call, double up and somehow still bubble the tourney


all of these outcomes pretty much support my opinion that this is a clear call unless the money bubble is huge for you(you sattied into something way above your BR etc)...and I've completely left out all the other stuff that factors into the equation which I mentioned in my earlier post.

and FYI, I'm not at all considering the sort of factors you brought up...not sure where anyone in this thread has compared themselves to big name TV stars. although yes you're right there is much more at stake when you make a deep run of a prestigious TV event.

I lawld

People advocating call are not at all necessarily ignoring bubble factors and comparing themselves to guys on TV. It's the bubble factors that make villain's range particularly wide here. This appears to be so close that it's extremely hard to go wrong either way. Comes down to personal preference and mindset, willingness to avoid extra variance vs. acceptance of it.

The idea that one camp or the other clearly has the wrong mindset based on this particular decision seems extreme.

If the decision is 0EV and you are playing a tournament as a winning player, How is getting all in beneficial compared to folding?

If you take a neutral EV spot for all your chips, you're just a break even player losing rake.

I did mention that it turned out alot closer than I thought based on those calculations, whereas previously I presumed It was a somewhat the top of our folding range.

But you're forgetting my comment was solely based on a person claiming this is a snap call, where as it still isn't - and if its so close, passing is certainly the optimal decision for a winning player.

Also, the calculations are still not precide and there are a ton of other variables, however based on the sole math this is a call/fold not a snap call

I totally agree with you that it's not a snap call but I don't agree with the idea of being a BE player and just losing rake by taking 0EV spots like this. This is a particularly "attractive" 0EV spot because we are potentially a couple big hands away from going truly deep in this thing and acquiring the type of stack we need to exploit/put pressure on others in similar fashion. Not accepting this spot makes it much more difficult for us to do so IMO. We can approximate the equity increase with math but I don't think it's an exact science.

A -EV call is a -EV call period, and while a good player isn't losing much by calling here for the purposes of doubling up and making a run, this hand has very little impact on how often you FT in proportion to the value of mincashing etc. Plus hero is BB so gets a lot of cheapish hands until the next BB its not like he has QQ utg+1 facing a looseish utg open raise where the decision is tougher because he will hit the BB soon.