[ QUOTE ]
When I bumped into Daniel at the Bellagio today I double checked with him about his view on gambling high proportions of his stack (without a big edge) early in a no limit holdem tournament. And of course he was against the idea, for him and all excellent players. Just as I said he would be.
[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming the good player has an average stack, he has no need to expose 40% or more of his stack to gambles that are borderline on a risk-adjusted basis, as a mediocre player might. He can afford to wait-- to avoid +EV close gambles with a substantial portion of his stack. His skill allows him to opt out.
This is because an average stack, in the hands of a good player, early in a tournament, is much more valuable than that same stack in the same stage of this event, in the hands of a mediocre player. Why? Because those chips in the hands of the good player have much more implied earning power across the entire length of the tournament. The bad player needs to take shots at close gambles because the event is going to evaporate his chips-- because he can't see spots to get cute. He has limited ability to perceive opportunity, compared to the good player. His play is of lower quality because he literally CANNOT and DOES NOT SEE what the good player sees.
He has fewer plays in his bag of tricks. And the plays he does have are primitive, compared to the good player.
The chips of the mediocre evaporate over time and he has no choice but to engage in close gambles. His limited perception of opportunity makes each additional hand dealt a kind of nail in his coffin. The good player on the other hand (same stack, same stage) is consciously gathering edges and getting increased chances of survival with each hand played. Other players busting, the larger sample size, more observed data points on remaining and new opponents at the table all favor the good player-- who makes plays at small pots with good risk-adjusted properties early in the event. Note that the good player actually makes a more correct assessment of the true risk/reward ratio on a per-play basis than the merely competent player. Thus his "small-ball" plays are of MUCH higher quality than 95% of the players when he makes them. This greatly improves (risk-adjusted)
Sharpe Ratio .
Note also that the mediocre player usually plays 100% correctly (for him) when he takes big gambles with small edges early. The good player-- fully knowing this-- gets out of the way.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes Daniel is an advocate of trying to build your stack up early. But only by playing "small ball" for the most part. With weak players starting the tournament, good players should get involved in a lot of pots if they can get in cheaply. And they should take small risks to double or triple their stacks in the first few rounds. Some pros don't do that and Daniel and I agree that they are wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is smart for good players to look for good risk-adjusted spots to gather chips in the early stages. This is because the potential earning power of chips held by good players makes it right to avoid large-magnitude gambles with them EARLY in an event-- and play "looser" when and where the risk-adjusted gamble (Sharpe ratio) makes sense.
This is
not weak-tight play. Avoiding small-edge gambles with substantial stack consquences may look weak-tight but early in a tournament structure, it's not. The tourney structure favors (and yes, in fact rewards) this kind of play from good players in the early stages. (Sharpe)
[ QUOTE ]
But we also agree that if you have tripled that starting stack early you have no way tripled your equity if you are a good player.
[/ QUOTE ]
Q: David will you please explain why in 3 or 4 sentences? Is it because the good player merely keeping pace with the average-stack is not gaining any real equity advantage? Is it because he is not getting full compensation for his overlay in skills? Or both?
Or is it simply the classic arithmetic reasons behind why each incremental chip gained loses value (per TPFAP)?