The old notion of passing up marginal +ev spots in tournaments...

[r3vbr]

I think this idea is flawed.

The reasoning of the saying is the following: you pass up marginal spots because you can get it in with a bigger edge, and thus increase your chances of winning the tournament. And therefore several strategy differences between cashgame and mtt, where cashgame players you have a lot more checkraising allin with overcards or semibluffing allin with draws, people usually tell me it's wrong to do that in tournaments.

Well, suppose you are playing a live WSOP main event. Then in that case the theory stands, and it's correct to avoid gambles because since you are a big favourite you can play smallball etc etc.
What people fail to remember is that you win at poker by the hour. What matters most is not how many final tables you make, or if you cash or dont cash. It's your HOURLY RATE at the end of the month. By playing an MTT exactly as if it was a cashgame, you ensure that you always make the best +ev play on that particular hand, and therefore earn the maximum on the longrun. Of course you will have much more variance in your results, but isnt that exactly what you need to win tournaments?

That said, there really is no difference between playing MTT poker and cash poker except for the shorter stacks at the end, the antes, and minor considerations when reaching and at the money (these have a very low impact on actual decisions imo)

[Rek]

I think you will have a few different opinions on this one.

MTT and cashgames are like chalk and cheese in terms of strategy required. A very good grasp of mathmatics should ensure that a competent poker player becomes a winning one. I will never pass up a +EV in a cash game.

In touneys, there are so many different stages of play and whilst you want to play +EV in general there are times when I believe it is correct to pass on. For example early in a touney if crazy man is all in pre flop and I knew I had a slight +EV I am still folding. Whilst a double up is nice early on there is still no guarantee you will make the money. If you lose though you are dead. Good players will pass up small advantages early if it means their tourney life is on the line. No need to gamble if you feel you are a better player. No greater example of this than Phil "I can dodge bullets" Hellmuth. He will look for small pots early and lay any marginal advantage down if his life is at risk.

Later in touneys the strategy will change. Indeed there are times when getting all in as -EV is correct. You can't be blinded away.

So, you always would like to be +EV but in touneys the stage of the game is paramount. In cash games +EV means bring it on.

[PowerRangers]

If I knew I was a 90% favorite to win each hand, tournament or cash, I would definitely get my money in during a cash game, but in a tournament, you WILL eventually lose pushing even more than marginal edges over a long period of time. Keep in mind, this does not mean folding hands that are 90% favorites to win. It's just an example of why it's poor strategy in a tournament.

[Rek]

[ QUOTE ]
If I knew I was a 90% favorite to win each hand, tournament or cash, I would definitely get my money in during a cash game, but in a tournament, you WILL eventually lose pushing even more than marginal edges over a long period of time. Keep in mind, this does not mean folding hands that are 90% favorites to win. It's just an example of why it's poor strategy in a tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I was a 90% favorite I would play any hand as well in a tourney. I was talking more marginal +EV. How many times do you think you will ever be a 90% favorite with cards still to come? And if you are you either have one hell of an hand that you are not laying down or he is still betting with diddly squat. We are not talking 90% advantages ( well I wasn't anyway)

[Vetgirig]

In tournaments, if you aint willing to risk all your chips as a 65% favorite, you will get blinded away.

On the other hand if one have this player in the early part of the tournament - when the stacks are deep - that always go all-in with AK, because he dont know how to play that hand if he miss the flop. One are mostly better off not calling with 22 - even if one are a slight favorite - one will probably get better chances to felt that player.

[RobNottsUk]

If you had to play a cash game, against much worse players, on a limitted bankroll, where "when you're broke you're done", then your cash game strategy would likely be adjusted.

It doesn't make sense to risk your whole roll on a 55-45 shot, if there's an opportunity expected to be a 75-25 favourite (or better).

[RarocASP]

I disagree with OP. You need to look at the value of your decisions in terms of tournament equity, rather than on a per hand basis. For an illustration, think of bubble play where you may fold AA preflop if doubling up gives you little chance of cashing for more and you know another player will bust out in the next couple of hands (and you can fold your way into the money).

[Abbaddabba]

there's an obvious factor that everyone is missing, and that's the availability of games in the immediate future.

but then - the people who are missing that probably have a negative hourly rate anyways, so they're probably right to overlook it.

[Pokerfarian]

Dont pass up edges online. Ever. Except if it's at/near FT & cEV & $EV have diverged such that it's actually +cEV but -$EV. Don't pass up +$EV edges. Ever.

[r3vbr]

I said that I agree that in live tournaments you can't bust because you had to go to the casino, there is all this extra cost involved of time and money @ live games, so it's correct to play the standard notion of nitty mtt play (hellmuth style) but online if you bust you just register at another tourney. If you never pass a +ev spot (I'm talking even a 51% vs. 49% spot) then you will eventually win the most money on an HOURLY RATE basis because you wont grind hours and hours on a tournament just to reach the bubble or stuff like that.