[jackaaron]

A contributor to 2+2 mag had this to say:

“If you think you have a significant skill advantage over your opponents then you should play a more conservative game and not try to gamble with close decisions. If you think you are one of the weaker players left, then you need to gamble it up more, push some risky situations, and hope to get lucky. The better you are, the more important survival is to you and the longer you want the tournament to last. If you are weak, then it is best to try and get the game over with as soon as possible. You have a better chance of winning that way.”

I think this is completely wrong, and my reason is that when a very good, high volume player gambles and creates a large stack (or busts and moves on to the next tourney) he knows what to do with that stack better than a bad player. For example, what I can do with t20,000 in the 100/200 versus what the top 5 tourney players can do with that same amount is VASTLY different. I would probably pick many more wrong spots to steal, pot stab, resteal, etc., and just spew the chips all over the place.

Conversely, I think the weak players, because they aren’t good with their chips, nor at hand reading, or discipline, and so on, need to stay conservative and wait for really good opportunities because the decisions are much, much easier for them. Let’s take me, for example. When I flop a boat, or a set, I should try to get as much as I can and go from there. But, when I have QT in MP, and it’s folded around to me, and I raise…if I’m reraised, I’m likely to base my decision solely on whether or not I want to see the flop with QT, not on what my opponent’s range is, nor the tendencies my opponent has displayed over the last twenty hands, effective stacks, M, etc. (Not really, but I am a bad player, so I'm using myself as the example.)

So, which is it? Should a very good player gamble it up to create a large stack, and use his skill edge (is this a chip utility discussion? I don’t know), or should he do as the magazine contributor says, and stay conservative, and survive.