[registrar]

[ QUOTE ]
I think what is going on here is that a lot of players who don't understand the prob theory behind this stuff have chosen to go with scaling up variance at every perceived EV+ opportunity because it puts them in the winners circle more often. Bragging rights kick butt, especially amongst young players.

But in the long run it is not near optimal, nor maybe even a winning, strategy.

As the voice of reason in poker, 2p2 should not be fueling "gambling it up" as the preferred approach to MTTs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hang on a minute. What's the alteranative strategy to being in the winner's circle more often? That's unquestionably the key to profiting in MTTs (which is why I don't see poker as particularly similar to stock trading). You need to win MTTs to make a profit.

I'm all for pursuing a debate on whether decreasing variance can lead to more FTs. I thought that's what was up for discussion. The old mantra was that cEV = $EV almost always in MTT play. Most people on 2+2 think this holds. Baltostar thinks this does not. I would like to agree with Baltostar, because I like being contrary, and because I've always had problems with the +cEV = +$EV equation, in the sense that I think it can blind us to the overall aim if we forget that the equation does not always hold true. However, I think MLG is correct in that my reservations are more to do with what +cEV play is these days, not with the basic equation.

However, getting to the final three and taking 'em down is unquestionably what MTT play is about. Not even the best nits consistently ITM >20% so you simply have to make outright victory your objective given payout structures.