The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems like some people reason like there is some kind off special intrinsic value of beeing in the green zone. All else beeing equal that may of course be the case but all else is rarely equal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bjorn,

There is an intrinsic value of being in the green zone. Read the quotes from Harrington about being a complete player with all moves available to you. To say there is no intrinsic advantage is like saying that a carpenter with all his tools, hammer, saw, and screwdriver doesn’t have an advantage in accomplishing his job than a carpenter with only a hammer. That just doesn’t make sense.

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have missunderstood my point.

Of course a carpenter would be better off with hammer, saw, and screwdriver than just a hammer. My point is that is that you have to weigh the risks of beeing reduced to just a hammer vs the risks of not even having that.

I.e. it's not that there is not value in trying to stay in the green zone but that it has to be weigthed against the risk of busting out early (or beeing reduced to a very small stack).

Plus as someone pointed out, being in the green zone doesn't do you much good toolwise if due to tournament speed everyone else is in the red zone. (Obviously it is still better in $EV because you have more chips.) To continue the carpenter comparison neither a saw nor a screwdriver is much use if the job is all hammering nails.

/Bjorn

[/ QUOTE ]
Just an opinion...

I don't think you weigh staying in the green zone vs. busting out. At least, I don't think that is what Snyder is hoping you do, nor do I think Mason would either. If you bust out taking your edges, so be it.

From both Mason and Snyder's perspective, you make +EV plays, and if you're in the green zone, great, play like it.

However, they differ in how you "play like it." For example, in Snyders perspective you're playing the green zone like Mason would suggest you play a zone or two smaller.