Can't wait for the Sklansky article in the October issue.

[saultnutz]

i admit i'm no expert, but

if you drop a hypothetical 10,000 chip on the floor on day 1 of the wsop, everyone jumps for it. if you drop it on the last day, noone gives a sh*t.

[Hail Eris]

I think the major problem with the "chips lose value" sentiment is that it's not as significant as it's made out to be.

The incentive for accumulating a larger stack in a tournament is not that a larger stack is equivalent to a larger share of the prize pool, but that it has structural advantages that increase your probability of getting deeper.

This happens because many situations arise in tournaments that are +eV for big stacks but -eV for shorter stacks, as Harrington explains in his discussion on inflection points. E.g. a small pair or a low suited connector on the button when a tight player has opened for 3xBB UTG is a valuable holding when both you and the PFR have Ms of 30, but a worthless holding when you have an M of 5.

Because larger stacks are presented with more +eV situations than small stacks, to put it simply, the larger your stack is, the quicker it will grow. I think this effect is every bit as important as the cash value loss effect, though it is obviously situational which consideration should take precedence.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Hail:

[ QUOTE ]
The incentive for accumulating a larger stack in a tournament is not that a larger stack is equivalent to a larger share of the prize pool, but that it has structural advantages that increase your probability of getting deeper.


[/ QUOTE ]

This premise is wrong provided your opponents play correctly. But what happens in tournaments is that many don't play correctlty. They play too tightly, especially as they approach the money. Thus we have Harrington's inflection point theory which is just taking advantage of the poor play of many of your opponents.

Best wishes,
Mason