[DonT77]

After pondering this some more, I think the Finance Equation for Future Value is more applicable in a winner-take-all type of format where cEV is closer to $EV at the end of the tournament - because getting all the chips does not get you all of the money in most large MTTs where the winner usually only gets ~25% of the prize pool.

I think the Future Value formula might have some merit when it comes to projecting the size of ones stack say mid-way through a tournament, but once the blinds get bigger and the pots get bigger and variances get larger and the payout get nearer - I think it loses most of its validity.

In other, more simplified words, we can use the FV equation for cEV but not for $EV.


One other factor that has not been mentioned yet is the 'time' factor. In a MTT, it is the person who lasts the longest who wins the most money - and the longer you last the more money you make. By having more chips, you not only have the big stack benefits already mentioned, but you also have more 'time' - time to survive, time to wait for better situations or bigger hands, time to setup plays, time to change gears, etc. Note that in the FV equation the n - factor is the number of periods. In an MTT this could be hands, levels, hours, or whatever - but the more periods you are alive for and the larger your stack and the larger your growth rate - the larger you future stack should be and the more money you should make.


So how does all this relate to Mason's question - I think that by doubling up the first hand you can more than double your chip expectancy for midway through the tournament, but I don't think that it approaches doubling your $ expectancy at the end of a tournament.

It would be interesting if we hand enough hand histories, to figure out at what point a player doubled his initial stack and how that actually relates to his $EV.