[Deorum]

[ QUOTE ]
False. The number of trials is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it is not. If you only get a fixed amount of trials, you prevent all future scenarios in which you are a larger favorite from happening because the game ends as soon as those trials end (easiest example is if you only get one trial - as soon as you call, the game is over). If you get multiple trials, you do not prevent these situations from occuring by calling, because you/opponent will rebuy. In other words, when you get multiple trials, you still get to call him with AA the same amount of times whether or not you play Q7 when he pushes. You are not giving up the situations in which you have him clobbered. You simply add situations in which you are not as much of a favorite, but are still a favorite nonetheless.

[ QUOTE ]
But if you're attempting to merely optimize expectation per each SNG, then calling with "any hand with an edge" regardless of the number of trails, will not yield optimal results per each SNG.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not trying to optimize your expectation per SNG, you are trying to maximize your total expectation. Since taking edges that are smaller than others does not prevent you from taking the larger edges as well, you maximize your total expectation by taking all of the edges. I think where you are getting confused is that you are still thinking of this in terms of limited trials. If you were only allowed ten trials, then yes you should wait for a larger edge than just playing any hand that is +EV, as you would want to maximize your expectation for each SNG, because your total expectation would be (average expectation)*(10 trials). But in this scenario, we are not limited to the amount of SNGs we get to play, so our expectation would be (average expectation)*(10 trials) + (average expectation of all other +EV hands)*(however many other trials we get).

An analogy: You are standing on the side of a conveyor belt. The conveyor belt starts, and on the belt are random bills: $1 bills, $2 bills, $5 bills, $10 bills, $20 bills, $50 bills, and $100 bills (each bill representing a hand dealt, where the denomination of the bill represents your expectation for that hand). The conveyor belt will operate for X hours (X hours representing the time you play HU). During that time, you may pick up any of the bills from the belt and toss them in a box at your feet. Once a bill has passed you, you may no longer pick it up. At the end of X, you get to keep all the money in the box. Would you only take the $100 bills because it maximized the amount that you earned per bill pick up (each time you pick up a bill representing each hand you play, and each bill passing you representing each hand you fold)? Of course not, you would pick up every bill. Of course, I did not take into account hands that are not profitable to you, because we agree that we should never play those. If you want to add those into the analogy, pretend there are also post-it notes with numbers written on them on the conveyor belt which if you pick them up, you have to pay however much the note says. Of course, you would not pick up any of the notes.

[ QUOTE ]
Against an opponent using a highly exploitable, bad strategy your solution is to use a strategy that just BARELY beats him, rather than one that clobbers him?

[/ QUOTE ]

We are not only playing the hands that are barely +EV. We are also playing the hands that clobber him. You still get the same amount of money you would by playing only the hands that have him clobbered, but in addition to that money, you also get money from the hands that just barely beat his range.