I feel like I'm going crazy with this alternate opinion, but I consider the sources smart people so I thought I would try it with a new audience...

On Doug Polk's podcast with Daniel Negreanu recently, they were talking about Daniel's HUSNG matches with Hellmuth and the side bets that Daniel had placed. The match was at even money, but the side bets he was laying a price of 3/2. Daniel and Doug were indicating that the side bets added another layer to the match and the strategy. They maintained that the strategy is DIFFERENT based on the fact that Daniel had LAID odds on the side bets.

They were agreeing with each other that Daniel should be more selective with his all in spots because he needed to "get it in better" given that he was laying 3/2 on the side. I don't get it... isn't it correct to just win as often as possible? Whether or not laying 3/2 was a good bet has no influence on the correct strategy for winning the HUSNG.

I asked about this in the Twitter thread, but nobody could give me a satisfactory answer, including Daniel, who gave this example to back up his point...
--as an extreme example...if you lay 10-1 on the side and you have AK with 20 bb, its normally correct to get all in, but since you laid 10-1, its not a profitable play--

My response was that of course its not a profitable play, you laid 10-1. But the fact that you made a bad side bet does not mean that you should win less often to try to account for that somehow.

Am I going insane? Is there something blaring that I'm missing here? If it was just a random person on forums or Twitter that was disagreeing with me, I would be more confident in my conviction. But since its two well-known players, I'm a little more hesitant.

My remembering of discussions like this was that you have to compare two things: 1) Your total edge for the rest of the game. 2) Your immediate decision.

So if you feel you're 55% to win a match and someone shoves all in on the first hand and you think your hand is 51% equity, a fold there isn't a huge deal, as your equity for the rest of the match hasn't gone down tremendously by folding.

Practically speaking, I can't imagine it altering much though. And there's always a real margin for error in real time analysis, I doubt he's going to be accurately thinking "I'm 52% to win here" it's more like "I project this to be a 55%+ situation" and inaccuracy leads some of those spots to be 50% or less.

To add a little more: I don't think they were correct.

For example, if you are presented with a situation on the 5th hand of a match where you expect to win 56% of the time, but if you fold you expect to win the match 54% of the time, you would never be correct to pass up that 56% spot, no matter what side bets you made.

So I think that you were right.

I'm glad to see someone agree with me. Seems super simple to me.
Thanks!

Sidebet with HUSNG games change nothing- it's sunk cost like rake. The amount you win is only 1 unit (game) at the end. Everything that happens inside the game... has the same strategy.

Sidebets with bb/100 cash challenge is v different tho (because the amount/unit you win varies per hand, is a probability distribution). There can be a spot where you either win 1,000,000bb or lose 100bb VS lose 1bb guaranteed, and you should go for the sure loss (e.g. last hand of the challenge). This changes things from the very beginning in fact, which is why spotting large bb/100 makes the game completely different (if both sides actually adjust properly).

The side bet shouldn’t change your strategy, but accepting a 55:45 flip would be an acknowledgement that the side bet was -EV. Since the player should believe he is making a +EV side bet it’s at least logically consistent not to make plays that immediately lose on the side bet.

If it's the first hand of the match, AIPF, perhaps.

But you can't ignore your chances to win if you pass up on EV in game, that's a relevant factor and will change throughout the match. For example, think about a player that wins 58% of their HUSNGs. If one match gets to high blind levels and they're facing an AIPF, about even stacks, and estimate 55% equity, they should likely take that, bc they won't be 55% or more to win after they fold.

Great response. I think that is Daniel's thinking. He is coming at it from the back end and saying "well if I'm laying 3/2 then taking a 55% spot is losing me money, so the strategy changes".

My response to him is that this thinking is true, but it is not BECAUSE of the side bet. Its because he is a better player and that is the strategy that gives him the best chance to win.