Selling Yourself Short: Why ChipEV is (Sometimes) Overrated, Part 1

Save for Later

Part I: Abstract

Whether or not a particular play is “positive or negative EV” (expected value) is the life’s blood of poker strategy analysis. Students on training sites have undoubtedly been involved in discussions over whether or not one would “show a profit” if they took one line or another in a hand given some other varying factors, i.e. Villain’s range.  This method of analysis is crucial on the road to becoming a more profitable player, but as I’ll demonstrate throughout this article, the true meaning of “expected value” is often misunderstood in tournament-specific strategy.

Part II: Introduction to “Chip EV”

I say that players misconstrue the true meaning of “expected value” when discussing tournament strategy because of a faulty application of the term “Chip EV” (cEV for short).  In basic terms, cEV is the positive or negative expected value of your chip stack derived from a given play in poker.  cEV is a perfect indicator of any play in a cash game, because in a cash game you can only win or lose what is in your stack at the time. This is often erroneously also considered the primary barometer for successful strategies in tournament poker as well.

Part III: Introduction to “Tournament EV”

The term “Tournament EV” is used with a bit wider definition in different forums.  For the sake of this article, one’s “tournament EV” (tEV) is the cumulative expectation, either positive or negative, that a player has over a tournament field given his or her skill level, stack size, table position, and other assorted factors that play into a poker tournament.  For example, at a deep-stacked table full of elite players like Chris Moorman and Shaun Deeb, an average player’s tEV would be disastrously negative.[1] If, however, you were a deep-stack expert playing a table full of tournament novices, your skill edge would definitely translate into a large positive tEV.  Conversely, in later stages where stacks are not as deep, your skill edge may be diluted considerably with shallower stacks, because so many more hands get all in preflop.

Part IV: Strategy Implications

Since losses and profits in cash games are derived solely by how much you increase or decrease your stack, game theory dictates that you should always take the highest cEV lines possible whenever faced with a given situation. If your chosen line on a hand in a $5/$10 NLHE cash game computes to a long-run positive expectation of $55, then you would expect to make $55 on average every time you play that way under the same conditions. If you were able to calculate that an alternative play would make you $70 instead, you would be expected to take that line with every opportunity that is presented to you.  This is because the only thing that matters in a cash game is money, and $70 is unequivocally better than $55.

In a tournament, this is not necessarily so. Making $55 in a cash game is great because you can put that $55 in your pocket and walk home with it.  In a tournament, however, making 5.5 big blinds is only important in that it puts you 5.5 big blinds further away from zero. In a tournament, a line that grants you 7.0 big blinds on average is not unequivocally better than one that earns you an average expectation of 5.5 big blinds. This is because the former line could come with much higher variance than the latter and thus put you at a higher risk of busting out of the tournament.  As you know, once you bust out of a tournament, you can no longer hope to make any more added money. 

The most crucial corollary of tournament payout structures is that +cEV is not as important to your tournament life as -cEV is detrimental to your tournament life. In basic English, the chips that you gain are not as valuable as the chips that you lose. For example, in the early stages of a tournament, adding to your chip stack does not necessarily equate to more money in your pocket.  If you double up in the first level of the PokerStars Sunday Million, no one is going to hand you $430 for your efforts.  Conversely, if you are knocked out in the first level, you forfeit your $215 buy in and any chance at capturing a piece of the prize pool.[2] This is why it is much more important to consider your overall tEV when making decisions at the table.

Often, the single most +cEV play is the one with the most variance (usually preflop all-ins). If the highest cEV line with AKo in a given scenario was a pre-flop coinflip, for example, there would be a 50% chance you increase your chip stack (and still have a chance at, but not be guaranteed, prize money) and a 50% chance you get knocked out (and receive nothing).  In a cash game you would happily take this route because of the higher expectation and your ability to rebuy in case you lose, but when deep-stacked early in freeze-out tournament it’s actually pretty terrible strategy to employ. 

Obviously, coinflips are an inevitable occurrence later on in a NLHE tournament.  This article is not intended to argue that one should try to avoid variance entirely; rather, to encourage players to think critically about as many facets of their tournament strategy as possible.  When analyzing your play after the fact, consider how possible results of your line – both positive and negative – could potentially impact your stack size, table dynamic, and what plays you could employ later to maximize your skill edge over a field.  Remember, “showing a profit” doesn’t necessarily make every play in a tournament a good one. 

Even though variance is inevitable in poker tournaments, your expected value from a tournament is measured by the place you finish and not necessarily just the big blinds you accumulate. The longer your tournament lasts, the better a chance you have of profiting your strategic edge over the “donks.” 

In next week’s article, I’ll elaborate on some game theory behind tEV, some hand examples, and how tEV is implicit in many MTT strategies you may already employ.

 

 

---

[1] Conversely, Chris and Shaun’s tEV would be much higher than average, as it usually is.

 

[2] For a more in-depth illustration of this point, see the expanded edition of David Sklansky’s “Tournament Poker for Advanced Players”