[ QUOTE ]
When I said you should be 'afraid' of bubbling out I didn't use the word to denote an emotion - I meant that you should play more passively than usual if that increases your EV. I was using it in the sense that you should 'fear' playing passively if that decreases your EV too. If you have a dominant stack on the bubble of say a SNG it's often correct to open-shove repeatedly with any two cards. I wasn't suggesting otherwise.
In tournaments whoever finishes with all the chips doesn't win all the money. This in effect is a penalty for finishing first. You still want to finish first of course, since first wins the most money. But tournament payout structures certainly affect optimal strategy.
'Most MTT regulars advise that you should always make the play that has the greatest positive chip expectation in multitable tournaments.'
But who do the MMT regulars advise this to? This is fine advice for someone who knows nothing about how tournament structure affects optimal strategy in relation to a cash game and has decided to play a style completely different and super-passive/survival-orientated from how they play in a cash game. Playing exactly the same in a tournament as in a cash game is close enough to not make someone adjust to the tournament too badly but it's certainly not optimal. Just because some MTT regulars advise it and maybe take that approach themselves doesn't mean it's the best way to play. Besides, I honestly don't think there is too many people reading 2+2 magazine who don't know enough about the general math governing how optimal strategy for tournaments is affected by the structure of the tournament for this generic advice to be a revelation to them.
It's an interesting topic though. I read an article by Steve Badger who seems to present the same generic, misleading advice. I found this surprising as most of the articles on his website are excellect imo and I learned a lot from reading them. Here is a link
http://www.playwinningpoker.com/articles/03/06.html
The only person who seems to have gotten this right(ish - because he still doesn't present it very clearly) in print who I've read is, I hate saying it [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img], Mike Caro. Here is a link to the relevant article.
http://www.poker1.com/absolutenm/tem...0&zoneid=3
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok I am going to try to make this as clear as possible. You said yourself you don't play tournament poker, yet you are claiming to be a somewhat expert on the topic. Myself and Foucault (both MTT regular posters) have pointed out that your logic about playing passively on the bubble is in general wrong. Yes there are exceptions; I'll make an exhaustive list right here:
1) It is a satellite with every person recieving the same prize who gets ITM. Of course you shouldn't play to win.
2) It is at the Final Table where the prizes increase dramatically. It may be better to take a more passive approach because sneaking up the pay ladder means a lot here. Consider Joe Hachem's WSOP ME win. He didn't do much at the FT until late.
3) You are so incredibly short stacked that you have no chance of making any significant payout levels no matter what you do. Then of course you should just try to fold into as much money as possible.
Note that situation #3 very very rarely occurs. We are talking like less than 2BBs on the ITM bubble. Otherwise, you should try to double up a few times to get yourself back in contention for big prizes.
Anyhow, that's it. Those are the exceptions where one should not play to get all the chips. Otherwise, playing not to get all the chips in an MTT costs you money. Maybe this is why tournament poker is so profitable? Despite efforts to express appropriate strategy, people still hold onto to their own conceptions about what "must be right and wrong" for tournaments. Hmmm.