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

[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.

[tmcdmck]

chip equity and cash equity are different. if you double your chips by busting someone out, you less than double your expected earnings in the tournament, since everyone else gains some tournament equity by another player busting out.

To conclude it is categorically wrong to say you should take ANY +ev spot in a tournament if you want to maximise your hourly rate. infact, if someone shoves the first hand of a ten man sitngo, calling is negative cash equity unless you are 54% favourite to win the hand. I have a link somewhere that explains this all much more clearly than I ever could; I will post it when I find it.

[r3vbr]

If you are playing bad opponents AND you have other opportunities to play bad opponents (wich is the case of internet poker in wich several sit n gos are starting every few minutes) then it is correct to take even slightly NEGATIVE gambles of say 48vs52 just in order to upper the stakes.

Say you have a double-than-average chance of winning the SNG, and there are two or more SNGs availible at the site you play, but you only like to play 1 table at a time.

Now if you take a 48% gamble with slightly negative EV, half the time you are out and lose your buyin. But the other half of the time, you are playing with the same edge as before, but with twice the stack.
This is the case also in a cash game. Imagine you are versus a huge fish who has 3k stack on a 5/10 game. You buyin with 1k. I think it's correct to take slightly -ev gambles vs. the fish just to make your stack grow and play more deepstack vs. him and have the opportunity to stackhim. You invest twice the capital and thus your ROI% is applied over twice the absolute value.

Of course once you've gambled you should stop taking -ev plays and play more conservatively.

Also in a tournament I think most people are overly focused on "chip equity vs. money equity" wich I know is a variable to take into consideration. I'm only arguing that the Hourly rate, and the capital employed, are more important factors to consider, and they trump these other considerations that usually people consider most important when playing mtt.

I don't have the math to back up these theories but would be glad if someone helped out and did some quantitative analysis. I'm pretty sure this will be proven accurate.

[RobNottsUk]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you guys don´t have to pay a 10% Admin Fee to enter a tourney?

In the real world, if you´re playing worse players than you, online or not, it´s stupid to get All In on 51-49 shot as recommended by couple of posters.

You´ll take those shots so often that you´ll actually reduce your edge, because you´re not giving opponents the time needed to make a big error, that offers you a huge edge, in the rush to take a slim edge.

If you´re no better than your opponents, then you should push thinner edges, when you´re far from the money. But why are you entering this Tourney anyway in that case?