Quote:
Originally Posted by asunder
If there is a "spot specific" dynamic, HRC should calculate for that if opponent's ranges are correct, should it not? Say if there is an extreme short stack in play, HRC will adjust for that... Can you give a spot specific dynamic where you recommend needing more than +0.01 EV?
That depends on the equity model used. ICM/MTT-ICM calculate the stack equity after the hand based on the stacks alone, these models are not aware of future positions.
A typical example where you may need to manually adjust is an ICM calculation where a short stack is in UTG. The ICM estimate for the scenario where UTG folds will not take into account that this player has to post the big blind next hand. It is correct for UTG to play some hands with <0EV here, because folding is over-valued by the equity model.
FGS will take the posted big blind of next round into account. Compare the results of plain ICM to a FGS calculation to see what edges are appropriate.
(Similarly, on the bubble with a micro stack in UTG, it may be correct for other players to be a bit tighter than recommended by ICM, because that UTG player is about to be blinded out next hand.)
Quote:
In that vein, yes, HRC adjusts for it being 6 handed or the bubble but there is no general reason to want to have say +0.05 EV instead of your recommended +0.01 EV simply because it is the bubble and we want a bigger edge than if it was the 1st hand of the game?
The equity models all assume equal skill. If a player has a large edge over the field then passing on small +EV (ICM) opportunities can be correct, especially in the beginning of a tournament.
That's really hard to qualify though and can easily lead to players passing up too many +EV spots. I'd generally advice to stay away from that kind of adjustments unless the field is remarkably soft.