If SB (10bb eff) shoving 100% of hands, BB can call with hands that have 45% equity against that range.

If we take ICM in tournament or Rake in cash game into consideration, I think for sure we should fold.

Let's not take ICM and Rake into consideration.

87o has 45% equity against random range. So should we call or fold with 87o?

Should we fold to lower variance? or Call?

If we fold SB win the pot uncontested? so we should call?

Other example:

On the river we bet pot as bluff we need V to fold 50% of the time to break even. If V will fold exactly 50% of the time. Should we bluff or not?

Somehow we have the meta advantage of knowing SB's strategy. His strategy is exploitable ignoring extreme ICM implications, so we should not show him that we are willing to call him down very light until we actually get an advantage out of it.

If we fold here, he has no incentive to change his exploitable strategy and we can hope to get a better spot later, if we call he will likely tighten up in the future expecting us to call him very light.

If calling is literally 0 EV, it doesn't matter if you fold or call. Use whatever pseudo random method to decide.

Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself that, absent ICM considerations, you should always fold.

Either you're under rolled, or you're way too risk averse for poker.

You suggest you want to eliminate variance. Why? Variance also includes you winning x number of these in a row.

87o doesn't quite have 45% vs ATC, so it's a not a break-even call when facing a 10bb jam BvB with no antes. It's a slightly losing call.
To reduce variance (while giving up a small edge), you might want to set the equity required at 46% or 47% for a spot like that.
Tournament players will frequently pass up very thin immediate edges, if they judge they are likely to have a better edge by conserving their stack for a better spot that might arrive shortly in the future, hence the clichéd advice "Fold and wait for a better spot".
Cash players will also avoid "breakeven" calls to reduce variance, if they assume a villain won't exploit them for doing so.

If it's a literal neutral EV decision then gerritin because it's exciting

Use Pie Solver

I like the first post, but I'm probably more likely to always take the 0.0000000000001bb option because I think I'll handle the variance better than my opponent.

If the hand is truly EV, then you look for larger game contexts. For example, assuming this is a tournament, are uou short stacked. If I am the one with 10 bb, I am more apt to play for 0 ev to rebuild my stack. If I am not the short stacked one, and I have position on a player playing an exploitable strategy, of course I wait until I have a decent hand and wait for him to shove with ATC again.

If you are just wanting to consider one hand in a vacuum, then this is a pointless question. 0 EV means the outcome is literally decision nuetral, and it does not matter what you do in the long run.

I think this is the first post by sixfour that I agree with

87o has 45.05% equity against ATC in Equilab. Or I did something wrong?

https://imgur.com/vURksmv

It has 0 EV for calling and folding from hero (BB) perspective. But from V (SB) perspective, SB want us to fold? because SB can win the pot uncontested?

So SB has higher EV > 0 if we fold? and SB has 0 EV if we call?

So even it is 0 EV between calling and folding, BB should call to prevent SB win the pot uncontested?

You should call because gambling is fun.

Think about this logically. Imagine an evil wizard placed a curse on you. You are doomed to win nearly exactly $yourHourly per hour. If you are a tournament player this means you will never ship a tournament, you will only ever mincash or maybe a couple levels up and win two-three times your buyin. If you are a cash player you will never get stacks in, you just raise pre and cbet and win, maybe you see a turn once in a while.

That would be hell, wouldn't it?

It depends what he has. If he has AA or something that dominates 87o, he'd want you to call. But you shouldn't be concerned with trying to prevent villain making profit. All you should care about is your own EV. If your EV is zero, then you are indifferent. If you always folded the close spots, then an observant villain might change his strategy, such that he shoves even wider than usual (because he thinks you're "a bit nittier than you should be"), but in this hypothetical example he's already jamming 100% of hands. He can't exploit your propensity to fold if he's already shoving as wide as humanly possible.
Use the Monte Carlo sim. It takes longer, but it's more accurate than "Enumerate All".

This makes no sense, but I noticed the same thing when I tested it. Is this a bug in Equilab or does "Enumerate All" not actually do what it sounds like it is supposed to do?

If SB has a hand that have exactly 55% equity against BB 45% equity, SB want BB call or fold?

What give SB the most EV? BB fold or BB call?

In Power Equilab I get the same answer of 45.05% with both methods (I stopped the Monte Carlo after 800M trials). "Enumerate All" is always more accurate in the absence of bugs. Are you not including chop equity?

Depends on the shove size, pot size and ICM.

Weird. Maybe the (free version of Equilab's) Monte Carlo sim isn't as random as I thought.



I never trusted the Enumerate All button, because I figured it can't be right if it gets the result instantly, but I'm not sure how the program works. :/

Do the EV calc yourself and work it out.
EV = [how often you win * how much you win] - [how often you lose * how much you lose]

Assuming 10bb starting stacks, and SB has equity of 55% when called, then his EV when his shove is called is...
[55% * 10.5] - [45% * 9.5] = 5.775 - 4.275 = 1.5bb
If the shove isn't called, SB adds the dead money to his stack uncontested = 1.5bb.

So with that much equity, he's indifferent. He wins 1.5bb on average when he gets called, and he wins 1.5bb when BB folds. If his hand has more than 55% equity against the hand that calls him, he'd make more money from being called than from stealing the blinds. If he has less than 55% equity when called, he'd prefer to get the shove through uncontested, since more of his EV comes from fold equity.

Yes, the bug must be in the Monte Carlo sim, not the "Enumerate All."

The program has previously calculated the equity of every indivual hand matchup and stored them in memory so that it is a simple enumeration and lookup for all the hand matchups in the ranges you give the program. Notice that random vs. random is nearly instantly calculated, but if you add one dead card the program is not capable of completing the calculation within a reasonable time frame at all. That's because it's only pre-calculated equities for the standard deck. There are only 52P4/8 = 812,175 hand matchups in a 52 card deck, and not all of those are strategically distinct, so there are even fewer.

Even atc vs. a single combo with a dead card takes about a full minute on my computer. A more advanced algorithm could probably be much faster, still. Equilab probably enumerates every possible board runout for each hand matchup between the ranges if it can only achieve the result so slowly.

so should we use "Enumerate All" or Monte Carlo? which one is more accurate in Equilab?

Enumerate All, if that's not too slow. If you need a monte carlo sim, I guess use PokerStove for that (unless you have the paid version of Equilab).

to answer the ev=0 question sure it doesnt matter what you do if it is your last hand of poker with these player forever.

but otherwise they will remember your play and that can be turned into a major advantage at some point. especially against the person you made the play against.

So which option do you think is best? If EV of calling and folding both have 0 EV.

Always call?
Always fold?

always different for different reasons. if you play like a robot you end up easy to figure.
vary what you do by what you want to convey.

What is the problem if I always fold? If Calling and folding both have 0 EV.

What’s the advantage of calling and what’s the advantage of folding? If calling and folding both have 0 EV.