Ok, so this hand from a 36 man FPP satellite to sunday million on stars got me thinking... I mean i have 6800 chips and 3 people move allin ahead of me at 100/200 level and its gonna cost me about 2500 more to call to win a total of 10,000 chips, so basically i need to have 25% equity in the hand to make this call correct. Ok, so...lol...i dont know what i was really thinking here...so my call was definitely - Chip EV , as it turns out i only had like 10% equity in the hand...

But, if i win i have like 14,000 chips and a much larger chance to win the tourney, which is all that really matters considering this is a winner take all satellite....Well, i went on to win the satellite after this, and....

Well, i dont want to really talk about the hand in specific (or about my play), but more about whether it is possible for a call in a tournament like this to be - Chip EV, but +$ev... It is definitely possible for a move in a tournament to be + Chip ev, but -$ev (bubble in a sitngo with stacks of like 8000, 200, 200, and you have 2300 and big stack sets you allin and you have QQ in the BB would demonstrate this). I was just wondering, if anyone had any examples where the opposite would apply, for a move in a MTT to be -Chip EV, but + $ev. I mean doesnt my idea seem to make no sense? Am i crazy here? Someone smart help me figure this out please..........

Maybe im just blinded by my how my donkeyness was obviously rewarded by pokerstars? PLEASEEEEEE HELPPPPP, this is driving me craazzzzzzzzzyyyyyyyy

PokerStars Game #4986768502: Tournament #25020554, 375FPP Hold'em No Limit - Level VI (100/200) - 2006/05/19 - 17:47:20 (ET)
Table '25020554 1' 9-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 1: RipperinMd (2880 in chips)
Seat 2: mm713666 (2085 in chips)
Seat 3: Miska (1805 in chips)
Seat 4: jwwj44 (2014 in chips)
Seat 5: sasso293 (1140 in chips)
Seat 6: eritas2 (6805 in chips)
Seat 7: darrellbirch (2345 in chips)
Seat 8: aceben3 (1672 in chips)
Seat 9: CanYouPlay53 (2424 in chips)
sasso293: posts small blind 100
eritas2: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to eritas2 [8d 4s]
darrellbirch: raises 2145 to 2345 and is all-in
aceben3: folds
CanYouPlay53: raises 79 to 2424 and is all-in
RipperinMd: calls 2424
mm713666: folds
Miska: folds
jwwj44: folds
sasso293: folds
eritas2: calls 2224
*** FLOP *** [3c Qd 7h]
eritas2: bets 600
RipperinMd: calls 456 and is all-in
*** TURN *** [3c Qd 7h] [4c]
*** RIVER *** [3c Qd 7h 4c] [8h]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
eritas2: shows [8d 4s] (two pair, Eights and Fours)
RipperinMd: shows [Jd Jh] (a pair of Jacks)
eritas2 collected 912 from side pot-2
CanYouPlay53: shows [Ts Ah] (high card Ace)
eritas2 collected 237 from side pot-1
darrellbirch: shows [5d 5h] (a pair of Fives)
eritas2 collected 9480 from main pot

asdfljasldfk sadlfkj sadfasdf, asldfj kalsdkj flka jsldfkjalsdkjf alsdkfj lsadkfj l

I KNOW IT WAS A BAD CALL, it was a 375 FPP TOURNEY AND I DIDNT CARE THAT MUCH

Im just more interested in whether its possible for something to be -Chip EV, and +$ev? Anyone?

interesting, thanx for the tip

It's certainly possible. The easiest, simplest example is folding AA on the bubble of a sat.

Jay, but what about something being -Chip EV, but +$ev? This example shows a neutral or slightly +Cev play, and a neutral or very very slightly -ev play. I know for a fact that there are other situations that are much more drastic (+Cev, -$ev) situations. I understand that fact It just got methinking about the inverse of those situations, where if a certain play on a certain hand could technically lose you chips everytime you make it as a direct result of the hand, but what about the "uncalculatable" ev you gain either from a loose table image or from setting up a table dynamic where you can accumulate chips and avoid showdowns.

I read an earlier suggestion and did some research into some archives on 2+2 on a topic called the Gigabet dilemma, where gigabet talks about how he intentionally takes -Chip ev decisions in order to attempt to set up the "perfect table" dynamic, where it becomes a game of stack sizes and position. He talks about chip stacks as being "blocks" and if you lose a certain hand, but it doesnt affect your stack in terms of "blocks", then those chips are practically meaningless. (sort of why i called with 84, because i didnt feel it would hurt my chances to lose that pot, but winning would definitely significantly help my chances) It was a very interesting read, I also came upon an old interview with sheets talking about sng strategy, and how oftentimes decisions end up being made just based on how much leverage you have, especially in turbo/sng situations.

Anyways, im still kind of lost here. Im just trying to improve my game and such, as i understand how to play a TAG style and win some MTTs etc., but now im trying to take my game to the next level.

Sigh...perhaps i should just post this ? on 2+2 to get more feedback, but id rather not, since they flip out and are hostile anytime a newcomer posts anything on their hallowed message boards, or god forbid is trying to improve their game and learn. PocketFives---way more friendly obvvvvvvvvvv

In the example I showed , player 3 gains real EV on the hand but loses out on chip EV . If you take the exact example I provided and work out the numbers for player 3's equity , you'll see an improvement .

Also , there will never be a drastic difference between real EV and chip EV . In most situations , if its positive chip EV , it is also positive real EV . However this isn't necessarily true when you have a larger stack with a slight edge against a much smaller stack . In other words , ICM tells us that the smaller stack gains more than the larger stack if the situation is break even .

if any move is +cEV and -$EV, than the opposite move would be -cEV and +$EV, relatively speaking...