Daniel Negreneau Verifies His Agreement With Me

[BigBuffet]

[ QUOTE ]
In early and middle stages one may pass up certain decisions, not because the intrinsic value of more chips is less (which mathematically is true but strategically untrue) because of various factors.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, I am taking one of my own quotes from my above post for the purpose of justifying it based on a couple of your quotes from TPFAP.

On pages 179 and 183 you advise that your usual admonitions against taking close gambles should be ignored when taking those close gambles "increase your chance of winning the pot." Your chances of winning the pot I believe are based on many math and non-math factors pertaining to that hand as well as previous hands.

So are you saying: Close gambles are usually -ev unless we believe you will win the pot (why else would we play the hand??). Winning the pot increases your chips. Additional chips are worth less than previous ones in your stack (based on your many chip value threads). But winning the pot and the additional chips are worthy of -ev close gambles. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

If so, then it is not the intrinsic value of the additional chips that matter, it's winning the pot and increasing your survival that matters.

Therefore, the question that you believe "most great tournament players" ask is either not asked or is irrelevant.

[David Sklansky]

You misunderstood. I was talking about betting not calling. When calling almost all good tournament players think like me regarding close, big gambles when they have significant chips that can be saved if they fold. That is a well known fact.