Question about Short Run in Poker

[playtowin]

A friend and I were talking about a few of these scenarios - Mods, if this thread belongs somewhere else, please move.

Scenario 1 -

If you entered a 1000 person MTT, and YOU MUST win it ('someone was putting a gun to your head'), would you change to a different style of play? (for instance, pass up small EV edges)

Scenario 2 -
Would a person interested in making making money in the short run (playing MTTs)play differently than a person playing MTTs in the long run (playing for the rest of their life?)

[mappedout]

wow...ummm...... weird questions but here goes...

sc#1 the definiton of what it takes to win an MTT with a field size of 1000 should be constant no matter what ansillary circumstances your placed under (i.e. gun to the dome)... therefore no you shouldn't change your style of play if you "have" to win. you should take every tournament you play and think "i have to play in a way that atleast gives me the opportunity to take 1st everytime".

sc#2 people interested in making money "in the short run" prolly wont make any money, but no theoretically they shouldnt play any different if they want to win...

[Rupert]

SC#1 I would offer everyone at the table an amount to sit out then stall every single hand till its 10 handed or whatever and cut a deal asap that awards first to me

SC#2 I guess on the bubble you could fold if you are short stacked into the money rather than give yourself a chance to cash higher

[LivingTheDream]

Playing optimally in the long run in tournaments is the same as the short run. You give yourself the best chance to win by making correct decisions.

[schwah]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing optimally in the long run in tournaments is the same as the short run. You give yourself the best chance to win by making correct decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are a ton of situations where you have the opportunity to pass up ev to increase your chances of "winning" (cashing)

[playtowin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing optimally in the long run in tournaments is the same as the short run. You give yourself the best chance to win by making correct decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this.

However, I was discussing this with a friend, and we were talking about scenario's in which we might pass up slight +EV situations - I think we both agreed that we wouldn't, but I was curious if anyone would.

Additionally, it kind of led us to discussing Phil Hellmuth and Steve Dannenmann, and how they admit to passing up +EV situations (obviously this isn't correct). I think Dannenmann was saying on the Circuit (old episode) that he doesn't always look at the pot odds and does pass on +EV situations because he only plays three tournaments a year.

I guess I'm trying to decide that if I had a gun to my head, I would call an all-in on the first hand of a tournament if someone tabled two queens. I know I'm supposed to, and I def. do in any tourney I play now, but I think if I had a gun to my head I would probably be more reluctant to do so.

[Rupert]

if your utility from the tournament isnt just a function of money (i.e. perhaps fun/enjoyment you get as well) then by all means pass up +cEV situations to ensure you have a good time

[LivingTheDream]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing optimally in the long run in tournaments is the same as the short run. You give yourself the best chance to win by making correct decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are a ton of situations where you have the opportunity to pass up ev to increase your chances of "winning" (cashing)

[/ QUOTE ]

We are trying to win. This will be accomplished best by maximizing every decision.

[sledghammer]

Scenario 1: cEV will never diverge from $EV here, so don't be passing up edges.

Scenario 2: No, unless someone puts a gun to your head and says you have to cash. Then play it like a satellite.