[Red_Diamond]

I am surprised there is so few responses on this topic. Perhaps the name Annie Duke turns people off from even looking at this thread O_o

In any case, I will quote directly out of the horse’s mouth so there are no mis-interpretations.


p. 230-231

In tournaments, chips are valued in relation to the prize pool, so strange mathematical things can happen to the value of your chips, the most obvious of which is that the more chips you have, the less each chip is worth. Suppose you have a stack of one hundred chips and somebody else has a stack of five. Both of you are playing for the same prize pool. So, obviously, for the person with only five chips, each chip is worth a lot more than each of your one hundred chips. The reason: you’re playing for a finite number of dollars. There are certain strategies you’re supposed to play when your chips aren’t worth their face value.

Here’s an example. If you get hold of a lot of chips in a tournament, for both psychological and mathematical reasons you should play much looser. Individually, your chips are less valuable than the chips in the pot, so you’re actually getting a better price from the pot every time you play somebody who has a shorter stack.

So when you’re playing in a tournament against someone with a short stack, be looser in your draws. Because each chip is worth less, you can play more hands and bet more with the hope of drawing the right cards from the flop. Your chip may say $20, and there might be $100 in the pot, but the pot is giving you better than 5-to-1 odds because you have so many chips to play.

But if it’s you who has the short stack, you probably shouldn’t be chasing draws. Because each of your chips is worth more, you’re not actually getting a great price. Each card you pursue becomes more expensive. So it might look like the pot’s offering you 2-to-1 odds on hitting a particular card, but it’s not.