for example im in a table where effective stack sizes are 100bb and my stacksize is 15bb , lets say i take -ev gambles and reach 100bb , i can now make much more money with a good hand because i can win up to 100bb instead of 15bb therefore the ev of my good hands increased with those -ev gambles.

so is it really worth to do that?

If your stack size is 15bb then eff. stacks are also 15bb (assuming you are the smallest stack att).

Your logic is flawed because it assumes you will reach 100bb from your -ev gambles.

I'd say it is never worthwhile to do that. You've been here over a year now - have you really not progressed beyond 'Should I take -ev gambles as a shortstacker?' or is this some form of trolling?

So, you are the small stack and you know you can’t win much in a hand because of that. You have two strategies to increase your stack size -- make only +EV moves or make both +EV and –EV moves. Unless you are being blinded out, why would one choose the latter?

Expected values are additive. Guess what the sum of a number of –EV moves results in-- a lot bigger –EV.

I have a debate with someone and i want more opinions on this , the chance to go busto is bigger than doubling up but IF i double up then all my good hands will icrease their EV which might be enough to make up for the -ev flip.

What are you saying is basically that i should never expect to double up , i should instead expect to lose certain amount of bb in this spot in the long term therefore my plan is not feasible , thats what i thought too based on my understanding of ev.

But ev is not absolute , there would be times where i actually double up and the fate of those mtts where i double up change completely because i can now stack much more +ev moves , the long term is confusing concept , its not like something can stop me from doubling up and negate all those +ev moves , you are losing x bb in the long term yes , this is an isolated situation , it doesnt affect anything else. You think like ev negates everything you did once you reach the long term.

In a table with 8 100BB stacks and 1 15BB stack , is the effective stack size 15BB? really? if you have 5 100BB stacks and 1 15BB stack on your left , do you really play it like you would at 15BB?

If you need to ask this question, the answer is, "No" and there are way more important improvements to your game you should concentrate on.

this is cash game right? Buy-in for 100bb

You choose to make -ev moves because you can speed up the process of accumulation.

For example

I play in a tournament and i have 13BB , everyone else have 100bb

Im dealt 56s on BB and an villain opens with AK and i know he will call me 100% , i also know that i will draw AA on the next 5 hands and someone will stack off.

If i choose to fold this and do +ev shoves before i draw my AA then chances are that i will be only capable to win up to 13BB with AA but if i stack off with my 56s and win then my AA can now win up to 26bb.

In this flip im the underdog for about 58.50/41.50 which means i lose around 2,5BB in the long term when i take this flip. If i lose i obviously get out of the tournament BUT if i win im capable to make up for those -2.5BB in the next good hand.

Ev says my stack should always be 10.5BB after this flip in the long term but this is an isolated situation , yes my stack will end up at 10.5BB but what if in the next hands due to these extra chips i make big +ev moves and my actuall hypothetic *ev* stack size increases alot?

You win tournaments because you make +ev moves but the quality of the them matters aswell.

Try out your -ev gambling strategy and let us know how you get on. BQ has advised you against it but you seem pretty determined.

Yes it has advised against it but a simple *no* isnt enough , i would like more detailed answer.

As far as i think this , i believe if the times we bust out creates a worse or equal situation than when we win the flip then that leave us with the actual ev stack size and we gain nothing but we only decrease our stack and the strategy isnt working. That is only if busting out is equal or worse than winning the flip.

Here is a research paper courtesy of the University of Wollongong that outlines whether -ev gambling is a rational decision. It primarily focuses on a roulette strategy but overall the paper should be useful for somebody that is unsure whether -ev gambling is right for them.

I assume this was the sort of in depth answer you were looking for.

http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent...ntext=accfinwp

buying in for 100bb costs 0bb. gambling costs whatever -ev you think it costs, ergo its stupid.

Generally people who want to make -EV moves do so because they like action. If they know enough about poker to realise that this is bad and do it anyway, they will create a rationalisation to justify their gambool behaviour.

I am a soccer/baseball/football/hockey coach. My team is terrible at defending a lead but are greatly motivated when playing from behind and trying to catch up. What's more, I find that if opposing teams think we're a bad team, they tend to get overconfident and play poorly against us.

So I have instructed my team to always allow the other team to score on the first play of the game (without making it obvious of course).

Genius, right?!?

There is a standard strategy in tournaments to attempt to build a big stack early by playing aggressively and perhaps taking some otherwise unwarranted sue to the philosophy of being able to take advantage of having a big stack (bullying) and especially online where the next tournament is minutes away (go big or go home).

However that is decidedly an advanced strategy that can very easily be misapplied and turned into spew. Hence my original, "If you have to ask this question..."

(In tournaments, chips you lose are worth more than chips you win).

I think there is some merit to this strategy if we know that we are going to buy back into the game for 100bb. If we can cultivate an image of a manic then it can really help us at a cash game table. Also, a rebuy tournament is another example of were this kind of decision can help us long term. Many time, you only need to make one of these plays to "ruin" your image, so it might really be worth it long term.

I think it's wrong for everyone to dismiss this completely out of hand, because I think the situation is actually way more nuanced than this. I'm not saying it's for sure right, but I think there are times I would do it.

Whats this strategy you are talking about?

In my experience the only way to build a gigantic stack without doing -ev moves is through speculation + overbetting your big hands postflop.

Being more active in position and stealing pots helps too but usually it doesnt lead to a big stack without hitting a nut hand and stack it off.

Thats the only 2 ways i know.

Is your strategy something different? are you 3-betting light alot in position? do you stack off light preflop or postflop against bad players? what exactly is it?

CMAR is correct,


In a tournament, something that is +cEV is not necessarily +EV. This is most easily seen at a final table with ICM considerations. Consider a final table with 7 small stacks and 2 equal huge stacks. Huge Stack 1 shoves and you realize you have 50.1% equity in this pot. ICM dictates that this is a fold. Even though calling is +cEV, it is -EV.

There is an opposite effect in play at the early stages of a tournament and Summoner is on to something when he notes that something that is -cEV could potentially be +EV.

However, CMAR is correct that if he is asking this question, it is more likely just to lead him to spew.

Also, in a cash game, the strategy COULD have merit. If you can convince people you are bad/maniacal with 15bb and THEN play for 100bb, then it could be advantageous. Unfortunately, the strategy is likely to be wrongly implemented and/or go unnoticed by players who aren't thinking/paying attention.