not sure you fully understand what im saying but you lol'ing make me lean towards that you do....
yes i am saying that we can take a penalty in ev in certain spots by shoving....because it increases our gbucks
where your argument, if you understand me, is going to be if we know a hand is -ev we should fold it....and mine will be... but folding -ev hands nets lower gbux and become a loss in roi (I'm not saying tho the adage that sometimes we need to take -ev shoves....thats a different thing for a different reason)
I was just lol'ing because I know what you're trying to say, but I'm fairly confident you're just out-thinking yourself. I think it's self-evident why a net -EV play is always going to be worse than a 0EV play.
The only way shoving -EV hands in our preflop range increases the EV of our range is if it affects the villain's calling range. In a true nash, it may contain certain -EV shoves because they might be -.5 chips to shove, but it changes the villain's optimal strategy to include a couple calls that are +EV against your entire range, but lose 11 more chips to your premium hands, so shoving the -EV hands yields a higher profit than folding.
In practice that doesn't work... ever. The only situation is might have some chance of doing something is versus an incredibly adept/observant hyper turbo HU SNG player who tries to breakdown our entire shoving range to call optimally against it. If we shove some -EV hands that cause him to call wider than he should vs. our overall range then we're making more money.
In reality if shoving top 10% is profitable, shoving 11% of hands is less profitable, shoving 12% of hands is even less profitable, 15% is less profitable than that, etc. There isn't situations where shoving -EV hands actually nets our range more profit pre-flop.
Also, gbucks was made as a solution to the inherent problem with the concept of sklansky bucks. If we get 3-outted by AKs vs. our KK 3 times in a row all in pre for 300BB stacks we're running wayyy below EV on our sklansky bucks and should be up heaps of money. But if his range is actually KK+, AKs, we're losing heaps of money vs. his range despite being a favourite vs. his actual hand 3 times. Therefore g-bucks accounts for post flop spots as well where people are running above EV in the actual hands they get dealt, like if we run the 2nd nuts into the nuts 5x in a row on a board where the villain's calling range includes the 10th nuts 100% of the time, even though EV wise we're getting crushed, g-bucks wise we're printing money and he's just running consistently at the top of his range.
As for applying g-bucks to this spot, we already do that all the time when we rip AJ into AK in the blinds vs. an LP raise over and over, and even though we might be doing horrible all-in EV/sklansky-wise, g-bucks wise we're crushing since a lot of people call A9 just as often as AK.
Hopefully this makes sense/clarifies something, I just went all over the place because I'm not 100% sure what your premises are, but I don't think you're using g-bucks a bit loosely, and end up coming to a conclusion that we should be taking -EV shoves pre for the benefit of our overall range (which nash does because it has perfect information, but we don't so we shouldn't take them ever).
Can you quantify the blinds going up while chips are in the air?...
Afaik no one can/it shouldn't be a consideration especially when we're the last person to hit them. The situations that it does make some significant impact is when you're going from fold equity to no fold equity in early position when the blinds go up, and similar type spots. The less people at the table, the more significant as well. When you're in the SB and blinds go up on your button it makes next to no difference.
I was just lol'ing because I know what you're trying to say, but I'm fairly confident you're just out-thinking yourself. I think it's self-evident why a net -EV play is always going to be worse than a 0EV play.
The only way shoving -EV hands in our preflop range increases the EV of our range is if it affects the villain's calling range.
but we are comparing my shoving range in this spot to btrthanphil...
god says the best range to shove is 65%.....
btp shoves 15%
i shove 80%
my range ev beats btp....so i gain.....if no one is looser than 15% I gain the most.....even though i know for a fact (for example) 42o is -ev....
so as an adjustment...knowing everyone shoves way too tight....we should take the marginal hand...to make sure our range....crushes their range in TOTAL EV.
false......phil galfond changed that...now you get me....now you get it.
we make money on our ranges not our hands
Darb, galfond was saying that even though our EV vs. someone's actual holding is -EV, we can still be +EV vs. their range, therefore we take that spot. He says absolutely nothing about taking spots that are -EV vs. someone's range. You're definitely stretching the concept a bit. He's just highlighting that we shouldn't be results oriented by only judging our EV vs. the hand someone actually showed up with. It's basically just an argument against using all-in EV to judge your success, since if you look at a 50k hand sample in your database it's completely possible to be running way over EV, then see the hands you played and realized that even though you ran above all-in EV, you ran way below EV in running into QQ+ pre-flop 4 times vs. someone who gets it in with A6o and K4s in identical spots. That's the extent of g-bucks.
Darb, have you considered cEV vs. $EV in this particular spot given how top heavy these 180 man are? Even all your assumptions are right, is this the right "spot".
Darb, galfond was saying that even though our EV vs. someone's actual holding is -EV, we can still be +EV vs. their range, therefore we take that spot. He says absolutely nothing about taking spots that are -EV vs. someone's range. You're definitely stretching the concept a bit. He's just highlighting that we shouldn't be results oriented by only judging our EV vs. the hand someone actually showed up with. It's basically just an argument against using all-in EV to judge your success, since if you look at a 50k hand sample in your database it's completely possible to be running way over EV, then see the hands you played and realized that even though you ran above all-in EV, you ran way below EV in running into QQ+ pre-flop 4 times vs. someone who gets it in with A6o and K4s in identical spots. That's the extent of g-bucks.
from what i understand...it was later revised...or pointed out...that it was about range vs range.....not hand vs range....
but im looking at this from the perspective...of what the TOTAL EV of my range is in the spot vs...another regs range in this spot......that i used this as an example to show that we can shove a -ev hand to solidify crushing their range in this spot...
from what i understand...it was later revised...or pointed out...that it was about range vs range.....not hand vs range....
but im looking at this from the perspective...of what the TOTAL EV of my range is in the spot vs...another regs range in this spot......that i used this as an example to show that we can shove a -ev hand to solidify crushing their range in this spot...
but we are comparing my shoving range in this spot to btrthanphil...
god says the best range to shove is 65%.....
btp shoves 15%
i shove 80%
my range ev beats btp....so i gain.....if no one is looser than 15% I gain the most.....even though i know for a fact (for example) 42o is -ev....
so as an adjustment...knowing everyone shoves way too tight....we should take the marginal hand...to make sure our range....crushes their range in TOTAL EV.
Ok firstly BTP said:
long term...the person that takes the most +ev spots wins..
In this example you took 50% more +EV spots, despite taking 15% -EV spots. So these aren't exactly contradicting statements. You're kind of both saying the same thing in different ways. I'm sure he would agree he would rather take the 50% +EV spots and 15% -EV spots than not take the 50% +EV spots at all (I think).
What you're kind of saying is that "I'm taking these -EV spots to ensure that I take all of the +EV spots". In an example where 65% is optimal, this makes sense, because shoving ATC might in fact be more +EV than folding 85%, even though both are suboptimal, because shoving too much could potentially never make you -EV in the game. Say we change it to god says "the best range to shove is 20%" and BTP shoves 15% and you shove 40%. Although he's missing out on that 5% of +EV spots (1/4 of total +EV spots given) it's almost certainly more optimal than taking just as many -EV spots as +EV spots.
So it's true that it's possible that taking some -EV spots will yield a higher ROI than leaving a ton of +EV spots on the table, but it's super easy to create a counter example to that. The point is relatively meaningless because it basically amounts to saying "Some non-optimal strategies are better than other non-optimal strategies. Having a somewhat non-optimal strategy is better than having a very non-optimal strategy. Therefore we should have a somewhat non-optimal strategy.". Really we should just play as close to optimal as humanly possible.
Afaik no one can/it shouldn't be a consideration especially when we're the last person to hit them.
but clearly we are not in good as shape as the math shows....as we blind down further and further....we are satisfied with less and less 'edge' (sngwiz type edge)...here we do the math...and come up with our shove range...and should it be slightly wide because the math doesn't know the blinds are higher...we actually have less m
Darb, have you considered cEV vs. $EV in this particular spot given how top heavy these 180 man are? Even all your assumptions are right, is this the right "spot".
the payouts right here are flat...which means that the force of $ev is fairly weak....180 mans are not icm heavy.....on the bubble and the final table bubble the force is stronger. And it can be strong at the ft in some spots because the payouts increase......
So i ultra considered this when adjusting my opponents ranges and my own.
In this example you took 50% more +EV spots, despite taking 15% -EV spots. So these aren't exactly contradicting statements. You're kind of both saying the same thing in different ways. I'm sure he would agree he would rather take the 50% +EV spots and 15% -EV spots than not take the 50% +EV spots at all (I think).
What you're kind of saying is that "I'm taking these -EV spots to ensure that I take all of the +EV spots". In an example where 65% is optimal, this makes sense, because shoving ATC might in fact be more +EV than folding 85%, even though both are suboptimal, because shoving too much could potentially never make you -EV in the game. Say we change it to god says "the best range to shove is 20%" and BTP shoves 15% and you shove 40%. Although he's missing out on that 5% of +EV spots (1/4 of total +EV spots given) it's almost certainly more optimal than taking just as many -EV spots as +EV spots.
So it's true that it's possible that taking some -EV spots will yield a higher ROI than leaving a ton of +EV spots on the table, but it's super easy to create a counter example to that. The point is relatively meaningless because it basically amounts to saying "Some non-optimal strategies are better than other non-optimal strategies. Having a somewhat non-optimal strategy is better than having a very non-optimal strategy. Therefore we should have a somewhat non-optimal strategy.". Really we should just play as close to optimal as humanly possible.
from what i understand...it was later revised...or pointed out...that it was about range vs range.....not hand vs range....
Yes it was always about considering ranges as opposed to actual holdings. It's just that we get dealt hands and not ranges so it's hard to make a practical example without including holdings. When we use g-bucks we're always going to be asking "how does the actual hand he called with fair vs. our range?" or, "how does our actual hand fair vs. his range?".
but im looking at this from the perspective...of what the TOTAL EV of my range is in the spot vs...another regs range in this spot......that i used this as an example to show that we can shove a -ev hand to solidify crushing their range in this spot...
In this example you took 50% more +EV spots, despite taking 15% -EV spots. So these aren't exactly contradicting statements. You're kind of both saying the same thing in different ways. I'm sure he would agree he would rather take the 50% +EV spots and 15% -EV spots than not take the 50% +EV spots at all (I think).
What you're kind of saying is that "I'm taking these -EV spots to ensure that I take all of the +EV spots". In an example where 65% is optimal, this makes sense, because shoving ATC might in fact be more +EV than folding 85%, even though both are suboptimal, because shoving too much could potentially never make you -EV in the game. Say we change it to god says "the best range to shove is 20%" and BTP shoves 15% and you shove 40%. Although he's missing out on that 5% of +EV spots (1/4 of total +EV spots given) it's almost certainly more optimal than taking just as many -EV spots as +EV spots.
So it's true that it's possible that taking some -EV spots will yield a higher ROI than leaving a ton of +EV spots on the table, but it's super easy to create a counter example to that. The point is relatively meaningless because it basically amounts to saying "Some non-optimal strategies are better than other non-optimal strategies. Having a somewhat non-optimal strategy is better than having a very non-optimal strategy. Therefore we should have a somewhat non-optimal strategy.". Really we should just play as close to optimal as humanly possible.
yes ...now you see and you agree....and you explain it how btp will agree....thx
so if you are god...what do you think the optimal shoving range is....knowing that villain is not a reg....knowing the breaking even range of the math you showed....adding the fact that we have less M than math shows, because the blinds have now gone up.........and knowing that im smart enough to understand the fact that i just pointed out about ranges....giving me at least some credence to my ranging abilities....
whats the correct shove range....it has to be quite wider than 15%......
Yes it was always about considering ranges as opposed to actual holdings. It's just that we get dealt hands and not ranges so it's hard to make a practical example without including holdings. When we use g-bucks we're always going to be asking "how does the actual hand he called with fair vs. our range?" or, "how does our actual hand fair vs. his range?".
yes you point out im not using gbux exactly correct here...im talking about my range in this spot...vs everyone elses range in this spot...
Yes common sense has entered the building, thank you.:)
Really?...
Really??...
REALLY?? ?? ??
Well, aparently I was wrong and common sense can be kidnapped and held at gun point while being forced to do things and be around people it never would have been otherwise.
but clearly we are not in good as shape as the math shows....as we blind down further and further....we are satisfied with less and less 'edge' (sngwiz type edge)...here we do the math...and come up with our shove range...and should it be slightly wide because the math doesn't know the blinds are higher...we actually have less m
I think we talked about this the other night. Just as the force of ICM in 180s is weak for the most part, the force of the blinds raising is weak for the most part. It probably gets mostly cancelled out by ICM in most spots (except for the extreme ones like the one I said earlier). The movement/increase of the blinds is a footnote compared to ICM in your overall play.
all I can say to you yoda is, that you have a good mind for poker. Over thinking things in certain spots will sometimes get you introuble, but I think can result in a lot of +ev spots for you. This isnt one but the fact that you can pull out a hand that seems so cut and dry and produce thoughts like you have can only do well for you in the future.
Good thread
I think we talked about this the other night. Just as the force of ICM in 180s is weak for the most part, the force of the blinds raising is weak for the most part. It probably gets mostly cancelled out by ICM in most spots (except for the extreme ones like the one I said earlier). The movement/increase of the blinds is a footnote compared to ICM in your overall play.
yes and i had a question about it for another time....but when we have a sharp range...like 15%...no doubt...if the blinds go up while our hand is in the air...we can shove 16 or 17% no? especially if we have 9bbs or less this would impact us more than 12.....
And im guessing and you would know....that its not linear....its affects us exponentially worse as our m decreases?
yes you point out im not using gbux exactly correct here...im talking about my range in this spot...vs everyone elses range in this spot...
Right, so "everyone else" being if we were to test the various ranges that people suggested in this spot and see the EV compared to the range you suggest?
the payouts right here are flat...which means that the force of $ev is fairly weak....180 mans are not icm heavy.....on the bubble and the final table bubble the force is stronger. And it can be strong at the ft in some spots because the payouts increase......
So i ultra considered this when adjusting my opponents ranges and my own.
Meta-game scenerio...
Showing down this hand (assuming MP folds majority of his min-raise range as you expects) will no doubt affect your $ev in a turbo where you're push-botting a wider range and will thus get called wider does it not? Also doesn't it also affect your ability to abuse the FT bubble (although to be fair it doesn't usually last more than a few hands)
yes and i had a question about it for another time....but when we have a sharp range...like 15%...no doubt...if the blinds go up while our hand is in the air...we can shove 16 or 17% no? especially if we have 9bbs or less this would impact us more than 12.....
And im guessing and you would know....that its not linear....its affects us exponentially worse as our m decreases?
No, seriously it's not even a consideration in this spot. It's like... maybe you should be shoving 16% instead of 15%, maybe you should be shoving 15.0001% instead of 15%, maybe you're normally shoving 1% too wide so now you're shoving optimally when the blinds are moving up, lol. It's just not worth worrying about, ya know?
No, seriously it's not even a consideration in this spot. It's like... maybe you should be shoving 16% instead of 15%, maybe you should be shoving 15.0001% instead of 15%, maybe you're normally shoving 1% too wide so now you're shoving optimally when the blinds are moving up, lol. It's just not worth worrying about, ya know?
So that's like those that posts whether they played a flopped Royal Flush properly and maximized their value when they should be worrying about the 99.99% of the other hands in their database? lol
all I can say to you yoda is, that you have a good mind for poker. Over thinking things in certain spots will sometimes get you introuble, but I think can result in a lot of +ev spots for you. This isnt one but the fact that you can pull out a hand that seems so cut and dry and produce thoughts like you have can only do well for you in the future.
Good thread
tx for stopping by, we'll do this all the time huh?
Right, so "everyone else" being if we were to test the various ranges that people suggested in this spot and see the EV compared to the range you suggest?
almost...instead though...you be the judge...of all the factors...and come up with the real profitable range.....knowing that my range showed 42o to be break even.....
taking everything into account but saying no darb i think the ranges are this and this.....but i will average it a little with you.....
Showing down this hand (assuming MP folds majority of his min-raise range as you expects) will no doubt affect your $ev in a turbo where you're push-botting a wider range and will thus get called wider does it not? Also doesn't it also affect your ability to abuse the FT bubble (although to be fair it doesn't usually last more than a few hands)
i just have to be image conscious....and i can use it to get calls when i have monsters as well....
and people don't adjust...
also people fear me...there is fear equity...the think im an idiot and i will mess with their stack...
im not just throwing garbage answers at you...i thought about this a long time while playing...
if im shoving 80% when folded to in the sb with 10bbs
and shoving 100% if the blinds were at the next level and i had say 7 bbs
then if i have the 81%th hand and the blinds had gone up while making my decision....
i would rather shove than fold to wait for my next chance.....
no merrit?
The thing is we're still shoving THIS level, not next level, and it's hard to say how much the blinds should affect our range, and they should have the least affect of all when they go up on our button.
So maybe merit? But not enough to change your decision here. Definitely not something you should be worrying about yet!
Comments
we make money on our ranges not our hands
I was just lol'ing because I know what you're trying to say, but I'm fairly confident you're just out-thinking yourself. I think it's self-evident why a net -EV play is always going to be worse than a 0EV play.
The only way shoving -EV hands in our preflop range increases the EV of our range is if it affects the villain's calling range. In a true nash, it may contain certain -EV shoves because they might be -.5 chips to shove, but it changes the villain's optimal strategy to include a couple calls that are +EV against your entire range, but lose 11 more chips to your premium hands, so shoving the -EV hands yields a higher profit than folding.
In practice that doesn't work... ever. The only situation is might have some chance of doing something is versus an incredibly adept/observant hyper turbo HU SNG player who tries to breakdown our entire shoving range to call optimally against it. If we shove some -EV hands that cause him to call wider than he should vs. our overall range then we're making more money.
In reality if shoving top 10% is profitable, shoving 11% of hands is less profitable, shoving 12% of hands is even less profitable, 15% is less profitable than that, etc. There isn't situations where shoving -EV hands actually nets our range more profit pre-flop.
Also, gbucks was made as a solution to the inherent problem with the concept of sklansky bucks. If we get 3-outted by AKs vs. our KK 3 times in a row all in pre for 300BB stacks we're running wayyy below EV on our sklansky bucks and should be up heaps of money. But if his range is actually KK+, AKs, we're losing heaps of money vs. his range despite being a favourite vs. his actual hand 3 times. Therefore g-bucks accounts for post flop spots as well where people are running above EV in the actual hands they get dealt, like if we run the 2nd nuts into the nuts 5x in a row on a board where the villain's calling range includes the 10th nuts 100% of the time, even though EV wise we're getting crushed, g-bucks wise we're printing money and he's just running consistently at the top of his range.
As for applying g-bucks to this spot, we already do that all the time when we rip AJ into AK in the blinds vs. an LP raise over and over, and even though we might be doing horrible all-in EV/sklansky-wise, g-bucks wise we're crushing since a lot of people call A9 just as often as AK.
Hopefully this makes sense/clarifies something, I just went all over the place because I'm not 100% sure what your premises are, but I don't think you're using g-bucks a bit loosely, and end up coming to a conclusion that we should be taking -EV shoves pre for the benefit of our overall range (which nash does because it has perfect information, but we don't so we shouldn't take them ever).
I said +ev SPOT! not +ev HAND....
now you get me......now you get it :P
Afaik no one can/it shouldn't be a consideration especially when we're the last person to hit them. The situations that it does make some significant impact is when you're going from fold equity to no fold equity in early position when the blinds go up, and similar type spots. The less people at the table, the more significant as well. When you're in the SB and blinds go up on your button it makes next to no difference.
god says the best range to shove is 65%.....
btp shoves 15%
i shove 80%
my range ev beats btp....so i gain.....if no one is looser than 15% I gain the most.....even though i know for a fact (for example) 42o is -ev....
so as an adjustment...knowing everyone shoves way too tight....we should take the marginal hand...to make sure our range....crushes their range in TOTAL EV.
Darb, galfond was saying that even though our EV vs. someone's actual holding is -EV, we can still be +EV vs. their range, therefore we take that spot. He says absolutely nothing about taking spots that are -EV vs. someone's range. You're definitely stretching the concept a bit. He's just highlighting that we shouldn't be results oriented by only judging our EV vs. the hand someone actually showed up with. It's basically just an argument against using all-in EV to judge your success, since if you look at a 50k hand sample in your database it's completely possible to be running way over EV, then see the hands you played and realized that even though you ran above all-in EV, you ran way below EV in running into QQ+ pre-flop 4 times vs. someone who gets it in with A6o and K4s in identical spots. That's the extent of g-bucks.
but im looking at this from the perspective...of what the TOTAL EV of my range is in the spot vs...another regs range in this spot......that i used this as an example to show that we can shove a -ev hand to solidify crushing their range in this spot...
......but your wrong
Ok firstly BTP said:
In this example you took 50% more +EV spots, despite taking 15% -EV spots. So these aren't exactly contradicting statements. You're kind of both saying the same thing in different ways. I'm sure he would agree he would rather take the 50% +EV spots and 15% -EV spots than not take the 50% +EV spots at all (I think).
What you're kind of saying is that "I'm taking these -EV spots to ensure that I take all of the +EV spots". In an example where 65% is optimal, this makes sense, because shoving ATC might in fact be more +EV than folding 85%, even though both are suboptimal, because shoving too much could potentially never make you -EV in the game. Say we change it to god says "the best range to shove is 20%" and BTP shoves 15% and you shove 40%. Although he's missing out on that 5% of +EV spots (1/4 of total +EV spots given) it's almost certainly more optimal than taking just as many -EV spots as +EV spots.
So it's true that it's possible that taking some -EV spots will yield a higher ROI than leaving a ton of +EV spots on the table, but it's super easy to create a counter example to that. The point is relatively meaningless because it basically amounts to saying "Some non-optimal strategies are better than other non-optimal strategies. Having a somewhat non-optimal strategy is better than having a very non-optimal strategy. Therefore we should have a somewhat non-optimal strategy.". Really we should just play as close to optimal as humanly possible.
So i ultra considered this when adjusting my opponents ranges and my own.
Have you seen me play? haha the answer is obvious
Yes it was always about considering ranges as opposed to actual holdings. It's just that we get dealt hands and not ranges so it's hard to make a practical example without including holdings. When we use g-bucks we're always going to be asking "how does the actual hand he called with fair vs. our range?" or, "how does our actual hand fair vs. his range?".
Answered above.
so if you are god...what do you think the optimal shoving range is....knowing that villain is not a reg....knowing the breaking even range of the math you showed....adding the fact that we have less M than math shows, because the blinds have now gone up.........and knowing that im smart enough to understand the fact that i just pointed out about ranges....giving me at least some credence to my ranging abilities....
whats the correct shove range....it has to be quite wider than 15%......
Really?...
Really??...
REALLY?? ?? ??
Well, aparently I was wrong and common sense can be kidnapped and held at gun point while being forced to do things and be around people it never would have been otherwise.
Also, this thread is fun
I think we talked about this the other night. Just as the force of ICM in 180s is weak for the most part, the force of the blinds raising is weak for the most part. It probably gets mostly cancelled out by ICM in most spots (except for the extreme ones like the one I said earlier). The movement/increase of the blinds is a footnote compared to ICM in your overall play.
Good thread
And im guessing and you would know....that its not linear....its affects us exponentially worse as our m decreases?
Right, so "everyone else" being if we were to test the various ranges that people suggested in this spot and see the EV compared to the range you suggest?
Meta-game scenerio...
Showing down this hand (assuming MP folds majority of his min-raise range as you expects) will no doubt affect your $ev in a turbo where you're push-botting a wider range and will thus get called wider does it not? Also doesn't it also affect your ability to abuse the FT bubble (although to be fair it doesn't usually last more than a few hands)
No, seriously it's not even a consideration in this spot. It's like... maybe you should be shoving 16% instead of 15%, maybe you should be shoving 15.0001% instead of 15%, maybe you're normally shoving 1% too wide so now you're shoving optimally when the blinds are moving up, lol. It's just not worth worrying about, ya know?
So that's like those that posts whether they played a flopped Royal Flush properly and maximized their value when they should be worrying about the 99.99% of the other hands in their database? lol
almost...instead though...you be the judge...of all the factors...and come up with the real profitable range.....knowing that my range showed 42o to be break even.....
taking everything into account but saying no darb i think the ranges are this and this.....but i will average it a little with you.....
give us the god range....
and people don't adjust...
also people fear me...there is fear equity...the think im an idiot and i will mess with their stack...
im not just throwing garbage answers at you...i thought about this a long time while playing...
and i appreciate the thoughts
this is how i came up with that....
ex
if im shoving 80% when folded to in the sb with 10bbs
and shoving 100% if the blinds were at the next level and i had say 7 bbs
then if i have the 81%th hand and the blinds had gone up while making my decision....
i would rather shove than fold to wait for my next chance.....
no merrit?
The thing is we're still shoving THIS level, not next level, and it's hard to say how much the blinds should affect our range, and they should have the least affect of all when they go up on our button.
So maybe merit? But not enough to change your decision here. Definitely not something you should be worrying about yet!