Daniel Negreneau Verifies His Agreement With Me

[Beavis68]

I am having a hard time understanding why early in a tournament is so stressed.

The disparity in chip to real dollar value is smallest early in the game, and greatest late in the game.

So if you shouldnt gamble early, why should you do it later? If anything you should play tighter as the game goes on if you are going by chip value.

Lets look at a 10 man tournament that playes 2 places with a 70/30 payout.

An early double up w/ten players remaining increases your equity by about 92.7%

Now, what happens with 5 remaining?

If everyone has 3600 chips and you manage to double up it increases your equity 82%

Now with 3 people left all with 6k in chips doubling only increases your equity by 64%

So, why not loose early and tight later?

[BigBuffet]

[ QUOTE ]
So if you shouldnt gamble early, why should you do it later? If anything you should play tighter as the game goes on if you are going by chip value.

[/ QUOTE ]

You gamble later to take advantage of players tightening up while approaching the bubble.

[Beavis68]

sorry, that isnt what I am talking about.

You should be making calls much more tightly according to the chip value theory.

aggressive players make aggressive raises throughout, Daniel included.

but you would need a bigger and bigger edge to make big calls later in the tournament

[BigBuffet]

Perhaps it should be called a chip value hypothesis.

When you make calls, raises or folds it is based on many factors--pot odds, implied odds, pot equity, your table image, your stack/their stack, 'M', position, etc. It is also based on what you are trying to do in that hand--stone bluff, semi-buff, value bet, PF raise & flop CB, drive out draws, bet your draws, etc.

Does anyone ask themselves "Hmmm, should I fold because the extra chips I would gain have less intrinsic value than the ones I have now?" No.

As far as "bigger and bigger edge to make big calls later in the tournament", when does that happen? The blinds go up and you need to steal them to survive. If a short stack goes all in, someone will call him and try to stack him with a somewhat decent hand.

Late stages of a tournament either become total luck fests or at least situations involving desperation and incomplete information. In other words you will look at your starting hand and ask yourself "Am I willing to put all my chips in at any point in this hand with these two cards?" If the answer is no, you fold. If yes, then you can play those cards.

You don't need a bigger edge later, you just need an edge: position or chips to push out players and isolate, decent starting cards (since others may be making a desperation move, etc.

BTW, here is a quote from Mason on chip stacks:

"I really don't think that anyone here believes that having a small stack is superior than having a big stack. If that was the case, people would be trying to get broke, not accumulate chips."

[David Sklansky]

"Does anyone ask themselves "Hmmm, should I fold because the extra chips I would gain have less intrinsic value than the ones I have now?" No"

You couldn't be more wrong. Most great tournament players ask themselves that question quite often.

[BigBuffet]

I don't believe anyone thinks of it in that restricted sense. The goal is to accumulate chips, as Mason has stated. Big stacks equal big payoffs at the final table.

One's analysis and resulting decision (fold, raise, etc) is not based on the value of extra chips being worth less intrinsically but on whether you feel you will win the hand based on factors such as reading the player, pot odds, implied odds, etc, etc.

I don't believe people frame the question the way you do, although the result may be the same coincidentally.

Yes, some hands will be folded if you have the chips to wait for (hopefully) better starting cards a few hands later. But I don't believe most people question themselves internally the way you believe.

In the later stages of a tournament there isn't the luxury of always passing up close gambles because the risk of being blinded off increases. 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.

To sum up: More chips = increased strategy alternatives
and increased expected future prize money. The decisions faced in a tournament are based on the survival vs chip accumulation analysis, not on the "more chips are worth less intrinsically" question.

[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.

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]

Late stages of a tournament either become total luck fests or at least situations involving desperation and incomplete information. In other words you will look at your starting hand and ask yourself "Am I willing to put all my chips in at any point in this hand with these two cards?" If the answer is no, you fold. If yes, then you can play those cards.



[/ QUOTE ]


Pass up edges early when the value of adding chips most closely equals $value so you can make it to the luck fest in the late stages and gamble with any two cards when the disparity in chip value to cash value is the greatest........... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[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.

[jdefoe]

[ QUOTE ]
Two queens against AK offsuit is about borderline.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, do you and Daniel get along? You're personalities seems to be similar, both of you are quite funny guys