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).

[PantsOnFire]

I thinks it's more important to recognize the marginal situations than it is to decide what to do there. If you start giving up AK pf if you think you are sure you are up against a pair then you might want to consider a little harder if villain could make whatever play he made with AQ, AJ or KQ.

Because folding AK thinking you don't want to face off against JJ when actually villain had AJ is a more monunmental error than deciding to flip a coin or not.

The same would apply to a hand like a pair with the nut flush draw on a (non-paired) flop. You very likely could have 14 outs which is close to a coin flip. You might have as few as 9 outs. However, if you are against an underpair or a straight draw or a lower flush draw, you are dominating.

My last point is related to how the coin flip scenario goes down. If I strongly feel I am in a coin flip, it is much better to have chips left and be the aggressor. That extra fold equity is everything and can turn a 50/50 into a potential 60/40 or 70/30 or better.

[The 13th 4postle]

Your thinking is good OP but, I think the general opinion is correct on this one. The name of the game in tournaments is too survive.... in cash game I will never ever lay down KK. I don't care how many pre-flop re-raises there are I would rather lose it to the chance of AA then fold it.

In tournament I might fold to a couple re-raises pre-flop because I do not want to get out of the tournament, it's not worth the risk.

I'm showing you this extreme example to show that the +EV marginal situation is bad in tournament and not in cash game.

Hourly rate is very important but, what good is it if your out of the tournament. Once your out, your out you can't re-buy unless of course you can in which case you play the same as cash game.

Believe this to be true and you will go farther in tournaments then you have before.

[Pokerfarian]

[ QUOTE ]
Your thinking is good OP but, I think the general opinion is correct on this one. The name of the game in tournaments is too survive.... in cash game I will never ever lay down KK. I don't care how many pre-flop re-raises there are I would rather lose it to the chance of AA then fold it.

In tournament I might fold to a couple re-raises pre-flop because I do not want to get out of the tournament, it's not worth the risk.

I'm showing you this extreme example to show that the +EV marginal situation is bad in tournament and not in cash game.

Hourly rate is very important but, what good is it if your out of the tournament. Once your out, your out you can't re-buy unless of course you can in which case you play the same as cash game.

Believe this to be true and you will go farther in tournaments then you have before.

[/ QUOTE ]
If we're talking MTTs then most of this post is just wrong :-o