Scroll any poker feed during a big series, and you’ll see the same story repeated: a top pro busts two spots from the money, lamenting an “insane all-in” where their 70% equity hand couldn’t hold.
It raises a simple but troubling question: if these players know the math cold, why do they keep running into disaster spots near bubbles and final tables?
The answer lies in a critical, often-overlooked truth: raw equity ≠ tournament equity.
Equity calculators like Equilab or PokerStove’s raw preflop viewer treat hand matchups as stage-independent. In their models, KK vs A7o is always ~70%. Period.
But poker tournaments aren’t cash games. A chip won ≠ a chip lost. The tournament environment fundamentally changes the value of equity depending on stage, stack depth, and payout implications.
This article breaks down why that difference matters – and how recognising it can save your tournament life.
- Read more: Eldarova’s Dynamic Exploit Equilibrium (DEE) Theory
- Read more: The #1 Statistical Error in Cash Poker and How To Fix It
The Classic Equity View
Example: KK vs A7o
- Raw equity = ~70% (KK wins ~70 out of 100 trials).
- This is true always, independent of stage or payout structure.
- Equity calculators stop here.
But raw percentages only tell the story in a vacuum.
cEV vs $EV
- Chip EV (cEV):
- Assumes every chip is worth the same.
- This is how standard calculators work.
- Reasonable early in tournaments when stacks are deep and elimination risk is low.
- Tournament EV ($EV):
- Each additional chip is worth less than the last (diminishing returns).
- The cost of busting is enormous near the bubbles and final tables.
- Requires models like ICM (Independent Chip Model), ICM+, or FGS (Future Game Simulation).
The key: cEV overestimates hand value in high-pressure stages.
Why “Effective Equity” Shrinks in ICM Spots
- Early Stage (no ICM pressure):
Doubling up = massive advantage. Busting costs little. KK vs A7o = slam-dunk shove. - Bubble Stage (heavy ICM):
Doubling up = modest gain in chance to win. Busting = catastrophic (0 payout).
KK vs. A7o still wins 70%, but the real value of the shove is lower than calculators suggest. - Final Table:
Busting in 9th costs multiple pay jumps. Doubling doesn’t increase your win equity proportionally.
A “70% favourite” call can actually be -$EV.
The Flaw in Current Tools
Most tools assume: EVtournament = EVchip
Reality: EVtournament = f(EVchip, ICM pressure, payout structure)
Where the function discounts equity heavily when the risk of elimination is high.
Case Study 1: Bubble Disaster
Tournament: $1,500 MTT, 1,000 players. 150 paid. Bubble: 151 left. Hero has 18bb. Hero (UTG) shoves KK. Villain (LJ) calls with A7o.
Raw Equity: KK ≈ 70%. Chip EV: Profitable. Tournament EV: Busting in 151st = $0. Folding = 18bb stack and strong ITM shot.
The cost of busting here far outweighs the gain from doubling. The shove isn’t as “mandatory” as raw equity suggests.
Case Study 2: Folding with Clarity – Beyond Simple Equity
Final Table of a WSOP event (let’s say Event #1, $1,000 Mystery Millions, final table with a multi-million-dollar prize pool) . Three players remain: one short-stacked, one medium, and one chip leader. You’re the medium stack. Blinds are high relative to stacks. You hold 9♠9♦ on the button. The chip leader raises all-in over the top of the short stack’s open from the small blind. Pot is large – over 30xbb. You’re faced with the decision: jam, fold, or call – but you’re concerned about ICM and future bet spin.
Equity Calculator vs. Real World Decision
- Equity calculator (raw vs ranges) might say that your pair of nines is roughly 45-48% equity against a typical all-in range (maybe 55–77, AJs+, KQs, AKo) – so calling might look fine on face value.
- But ICM considerations:
- Calling might bust you in 3rd place for a much smaller payout than folding and hoping the short player busts.
- Future betting – if you lose, you’re gone; if you fold, you still have ICM value and a chance to ladder up.
- Thus, a deeper strategic fold emerges – even if the equity tool says it’s a small losing EV call, real EV with ICM is negative.
Why This Demonstrates the Flaw
- A tool might only compute raw versus range equity, ignoring:
- The actual difference in prize money between 2nd and 3rd.
- ICM pressure and risk vs potential reward.
- Future action and how your stack size influences fold equity later.
- Folding despite near-50% equity shows an understanding that not all EV is captured by percentage equity alone.
A Call for Nuanced Thinking
The biggest leak I see – even among elite pros – is treating bubble and FT spots like cash games. They’ll justify a bust out with “I was 70% to win,” ignoring the contextual equity shift.
The right mindset:
- Early stages: Play by raw equity.
- Bubble & FT: Adjust for ICM. Recognise that folding a +chipEV spot may increase your $EV.
Poker isn’t about who wins the most 70/30s – it’s about who understands when those 70/30s are worth risking your life for.
It’s time to move beyond the vacuum of equity calculators. Context matters. Tournament life matters. That’s where the edge lies.
