[shaundeeb]

sigh I was not going to post in this because I didn't want to lower the overall intellect in the posts in this thread but I feel I need to defend nath here with an argument me and him have had with many others in threads in the past.

I spent many hours today trying to explain this stuff to a student today about the one part of tourneys I've experienced and couldn't prove because the math is too intensive. This is a lot of gigablock theory/optimal stack ideas theory included, I know many of you disagree with the block theory but it's correct in many complex ways.

Basically the jist of it is this example.

Say I have have a 15bb stack at the middle stages of a tourney and the stacks to my direct left are effectively this 20bbs,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45 , and say the player to my left is an aggro solid player who will give me fits is too my left the other players are no where as good as as him or me we are def first and 2nd in skill at the table.

Given these stack sizes if I knew I could get it in vs the guy on my left 100% of the time as a 45% dog I would take it each time without any dead money or anything. So 45% of the time I have 30bbs and 55% I bust,

I will not argue that in an ICM model my chip value would have doubled directly due to that hand we all know that.

But i will tell you my hypothetical chip accumulating per orbit amount will skyrocket from where it was in the previous example. And I will earn back the 2.5bbs or whatever edge I gave up in that 45%flip by having a much more profitable situation every time it's folded to me in any spot. In a few orbits as long as table doesn't break I will be putting myself in more and more profitable situations with my chips where I can play more hands for a larger edge. When I would of been handcuffed to playing tight without the double. Thus increasing the chances of me winning because each orbit I am gaining way more chips then I would if I didn't take that 45% flip.