no, by folding any of these hands to a shove (given his range) you would be making a loss in chip ev

Actually Chadders, this is not accuarte. Vs someone who's openshoving a range of 37% that includes all the strong hands, we are going to have a pretty huge edge. Having an edge, especially a big edge like we have here, changes our calling range vs his openshove, so we can make some folds that are -ev but give us a higher expectation in the context of the match. In practice it means that the bottom of our calling range, the hands where the EV from calling is only slightly better than folding, are going to become folds. for more information about this, please refer to the following article wrote by Skates:http://www.husng.com/content/optimizing-growth-not-bankroll-article I wrote a comment there yesterday which gives further explanation of this concept. You're welcome to follow up with questions if you have.

The callin range of 20% is already pretty tight, definately no reason to tighten up more in this spot and hand our opponent free equity. Your arguement is also based on the assumption of no remathcs, if you knew you could play this guy for an hour you would be chuckin away money if you made the adjustments you advise.

I mean you could argue it either way, ther auto win of a sb 63% of the time is pretty big but how do you quantify gettin crushed in the sb as op described. In reality if you ever get to a point where reads are strong it implies a bunch of rematchs so always just go for max ev option.

Interesting article by Skates, its quite logic if you have a huge advantage in the game / other spots,  it is not necessary to go for the +0.5BB option(which here means calling A5o or KTo for example . Imagine a villain opening tight with a VPIP of 30% from SB but playing accordingly in BB, we just dont want marginal spots, we basically print money with him in SB ..   Still there are some other impacts I guess, one would be we safe time, and our play still is +EV so maybe we can play 2 games with 1% ROI in same time as one game played optimally with 2% ROI,  its only an example to picture the idea, I know its a bit unrealistic. Other one would be if we assume due to our lose calling range he will tighten up his 3bet range in future games, and it will keep him from 3bet bluffing even though he should (I personallly think its a biog one)   As far as I remember H2olga answered to  a similiar question of mine in his well, that if there is a  + EV spot he takes it (in a Hyperturbo), so thats a support for chadders. :)edit: Well i mixed the position of the OP, but it still should make sense.

ye i dont think this is optimal thinking in hypers (ph33rox skates thing), the bad way to go. Seems fine in turbos though. Note that "slight" advantage over folding is not so slight in hypers, its actually good enough to not let it go since edges are smaller.

Leaving out a very thin +EV spot, might reduce your variance. But as far as it concerns EV, everytime you chose not to take an +EV Spot you will reduce your ROI. This is simple math.As far as it concerns Ranges...Sit 'n' Go Wizard says that 17.3% is the range we are looking for !BUT! Sit 'n' Go Wizard does use other ranges for 37.5% and you cannot de-select hand combo Q9 and instead add K3 or the likes. Since both ranges are kinda 'close' it is very good possible that the range you told us in your opening post is correct.