[r3vbr]

If you are playing bad opponents AND you have other opportunities to play bad opponents (wich is the case of internet poker in wich several sit n gos are starting every few minutes) then it is correct to take even slightly NEGATIVE gambles of say 48vs52 just in order to upper the stakes.

Say you have a double-than-average chance of winning the SNG, and there are two or more SNGs availible at the site you play, but you only like to play 1 table at a time.

Now if you take a 48% gamble with slightly negative EV, half the time you are out and lose your buyin. But the other half of the time, you are playing with the same edge as before, but with twice the stack.
This is the case also in a cash game. Imagine you are versus a huge fish who has 3k stack on a 5/10 game. You buyin with 1k. I think it's correct to take slightly -ev gambles vs. the fish just to make your stack grow and play more deepstack vs. him and have the opportunity to stackhim. You invest twice the capital and thus your ROI% is applied over twice the absolute value.

Of course once you've gambled you should stop taking -ev plays and play more conservatively.

Also in a tournament I think most people are overly focused on "chip equity vs. money equity" wich I know is a variable to take into consideration. I'm only arguing that the Hourly rate, and the capital employed, are more important factors to consider, and they trump these other considerations that usually people consider most important when playing mtt.

I don't have the math to back up these theories but would be glad if someone helped out and did some quantitative analysis. I'm pretty sure this will be proven accurate.