Because it basically takes all the stats of a game into account.
Let's say you have 3 different games:
A. EV is $1000, CE is $100
B. EV is $500, CE is $250
C. EV is $750, CE is $200
Remember, CE is the value you'd take in exchange for NOT playing the game. So for A, you can generate $1000 in EV, or someone pay you $100 to not play the game. They are both equal. If someone said they'd pay you your CE for not playing whichever game you were gonna play, which game do you think you should say you were going to be playing? If it isn't obvious, the answer is B, because the person would pay you $250 (for B), and only $100 for A and $200 for C.
Since CE is the value at which it is equal to either play the game or take the guaranteed (CE) amount and since no one is going to pay you your CE, which game is best to play? Remember, playing for an EV of $500 is the same as taking the guaranteed $250 [B]. I'd assume everyone would rather take a guaranteed $250 than a guaranteed $100 or $200. Thus, B is the best game to play, even though it has the lowest EV.
Looking at N0 is an attempt at determining the certainty of a game....but CE just tells you the amount.
"Everyone wants to be rich, but nobody wants to work for it." -Ryan Howard [The Office]
I don't and have never had a problem with CE, used properly. The way you were trying to apply CE to VP play was not correct and would lead you to playing with a smaller advantage....and even possibly a disadvantage if the play is not very strong.
Quitting early in a session because you've hit or exceeded your EV for the session is undoubtedly the incorrect use of CE.
"Everyone wants to be rich, but nobody wants to work for it." -Ryan Howard [The Office]
Bookmarks