Ak Getting Squeezed

[GrinderMJ 0]

Ok, first. What is your stars name? The one you put on the first page isn't coming up, and I'm curious about some of your stats. Second, Quit posting articles where players you see on TV folded in a +ev spot. Something that you should realize from the articles that you don't seem to get is why these are memorable situations. Why is that memorable you ask? It's unusual for them BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET RICH PASSING UP EDGES. Yes, there are spots in poker where you can pass up +ev spots, we all do it. However, these are very rare and there are top 20 ranked players who never pass up any edge ever. You are seriously seriously seriously overestimating your edge on the field. I can't quantify it for you, but I promise you, your edge on the field is not as big as you think it is. Maybe this approach will help you see a little better. My edge on the field is that I am able to see and exploit +ev situations over and over again. I don't pretend to be an amazing hand reader who always knwos what people have on complicated hands that go to the river. My edge on the field every time I sit is that I make better decisions than my opponents, and I create +ev situations. If you are capable of seeing these edges and still not exploiting them, then you are just foolish and costing yourself a lot of money.

[NEtwowilldo 0]

You're obviously an all or nothing player. I don't think you're putting enough value on tournament life.My stars name is southrnctowl. I've played 74 real money tournaments, with buy-ins ranging from 25 cents to $15. Needless to say I prefer live play, but I just don't like people telling me I have huge flaws in my game when I obviously have very respectable statistics against recreational players.

[GrinderMJ 0]

You're obviously an all or nothing player. I don't think you're putting enough value on tournament life.My stars name is southrnctowl. I've played 74 real money tournaments, with buy-ins ranging from 25 cents to $15. Needless to say I prefer live play, but I just don't like people telling me I have huge flaws in my game when I obviously have very respectable statistics against recreational players.

Wow. First, 74 is such a retardedly small sample size that it is literally meaningless. You must not understand tournament variance if you think 74 is a big enough sample to flaunt at somebody. Second, I don't want to sound arrogant but my game is light years ahead of yours and it makes me laugh that you think you can give me advice. Do I make mistakes? Yes, a ton of them. Do I have leaks? Of course. However, this is not one of them and you clearly don't have enough experience or knowledge to diagnose my leaks. Total Profit: $97,001Total Buyins: $51,095Total ROI: 189%Total Played: 587Keep in mind, this is since I turned 18 and got new names on sites. I had roughly 10-15k profit and 300 or so played.

[GrinderMJ 0]

The hardest thing to do in poker is admit you have leaks in your game. I've spent all year being told that I had major flaws by players much better than me and it sucked. You realize how much time you have put into poker and to hear that you are still a poor player really really blows. However, you will never become a top player if you aren't honest with yourself about your own shortcomings, and if you aren't willing to listen to advice of people more successful than you.

[NEtwowilldo 0]

I understand I'm not the greatest, and $500 pales in comparison to $97,000 or whatever, but I think the purest element of the game is getting a read on someone and acting accordingly, which is why I don't play for considerable stakes online. I had to back up my play somehow, and those were the only recordings I got. I've started keeping records of my live cash game play, and over ~35 hours of 1-2 NL games, I average a profit of over $11 per hour. (modest, I know, but I'm becoming more and more of a winning player of the past few years)I realize that there is always room to improve in this game, and obviously that's something I'm trying to do just by participating in this forum. Trust me, I understand all of the math you have shown me, but I believe their are some things that is just too hard to put a number on. You've come across with a very "I'm right, you're wrong" tone, which is why I've been so defensive in this thread, especially when I think that some of the top players in the world would agree with me. I'm only a 19 year old kid, but I'm extremely confident and passionate about my game, which is probably why I would fold the AK in the first place. Don't get me wrong though, I'm always looking to improve and learn from others. I believe that all of these aspects are necessary to succeed in this game, and keep continuing to get better. My thoughts on situations like these is that I'm not going to take such a slight edge, when I feel that I can make better decisions by playing hands out, which will allow me to get a better idea of where I stand on later streets. Overall, I feel that there is much less risk this way, and your decisions can be much easier on the whole. So all in all I appreciate everyone's help, and I'm sorry if my high level of confidence comes across as arrogance.

[simo_8ball 0]

1. 2005 NLHE Final Table at the World Series of Poker:Three Handed between Joe Awada, Scott Fischman, and Kent WashingtonFischman Raises with JJ, Kent Washington goes all-in with AK.Fischman folds JJ face up, then proceeds to tell his friend that he knew Washington had AK, but that Washington is a sitting duck.2006 Main Event of the World Series of Poker:Player A (Dustin Wolfe maybe??) raises with A K. Humberto Brenes (with a stack around average) reraises with JJ. Folds back to Player A who goes all in, and has Humberto covered. Humberto stands up and says that he knows he has the best hand, but he is not a gambler, and proceeds to muck his hand.Now not only did these players pass with dead money in the pot, they passed knowing they had the best hand!!Maybe you could tell these multiple bracelet winners about all the flaws in their game, and how much they need to improve for passing up the +EV situations that they did.

See my above example of David Singer. Just because someone is a great player doesn't mean they don't make incorrect decisions or have a poor understanding of the fundamental mathematics of poker.Also, I have never said you should take every possible edge. In those examples, without knowing the blinds and antes and how everyone at the table was playing it is impossible to say whether it is a good move or not. Needless to say, many players have large egos and overestimate their skill edge.

2.And even though my heads up example is a little off topic and not the best analogy, it is still extremely foolish to take a 55/45 edge when you can just wait for a 78/22 edge.

Not if you can just play him again whenever you want. If you have played him 1000 times, it's likely that you are playing very regularly. Then it just becomes a modified cash game.

3. "Survive and Thrive" Paragraph title in the tournament hold 'em chapter in Play Poker Like the Pros. Page 169. Author Phil Hellmuth, ten time world champion of Texas Hold 'Em. (Hardly a "weak tight" player in my humble opinion)

Quote from previous page by Paul Phillips:"The "hellmuth thing to do" doesn't mean he's better than the field, it only means he's (visibly, exploitably, overly) averse to going broke."Being risk averse makes you a weak player. Hellmuth is overly risk averse.

4. That article was by Phil Gordon, not Phil Ivey, not that it matters really.

You're right. It doesn't matter. That situation is hugely different to what we are talking about. There he didn't have a real edge against his opponent's range, and there was very little in the pot. Also, his table was overly timid.

[simo_8ball 0]

5. I realize you can't put all of that stuff about stealing blinds and playing in position into pokerstove, which was exactly my point. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you can't just punch some numbers into a computer program and say, there you go, you're wrong, I'm right, see the computer said so.

You can, it just requires estimation. Pokerstove simply isn't designed for it.

6. I, as well as several other people on this forum, have a considerable edge over the vast majority of the players remaining, with just under half the field remaining in a ten dollar donkament online. If it was the final table of the $100 rebuy, I would probably be the biggest underdog at the table, if I was ever lucky enough to make it so far in such a huge tournament, in which case I would make this call in a heartbeat.

Noone is denying that you have an edge. All we are saying is that your edge is not as large as you think it is.

7. As far as the range of the villain, Zach said a squeeze play can be made with any two cards. However in this spot, the villain is putting over half his stack at risk to increase it by only about 1/10. It's safe to assume that he has a premium hand.

Yeah. I actually have no problem folding here. I think we are only about 37-40% against his range. I'll have to check pokerstove though.

8. As for the comment about never going all in, ideally you don't want to. Being all in means that you have a chance to be knocked out. When the decision is for your tournament life, you want to have a big edge. If this wasn't the case, Humberto and Scott both would have called in the situations I described above. However they understand that it was a marginal spot, which is why they didn't make the call. And yes, 55/45 is marginal, when you can get someone to commit a lot of chips when they are drawing slim in a later spot.

With your MTT stats, are you claiming you win 890 player tournaments 2.7% of the time? I'm guessing that's what you are saying. I could be wrong.890 = 2^xlog 890 = x log 2x = (log 890)/(log 2) = ~9.8You need to double up 9.8 times to win an 890 player tournament.y^9.8 = 0.027, where y is your probability of doubling through.9.8 log y = log 0.027log y = (1/9.8) log 0.027y = 0.027^(1/9.8) = 0.69So, if your statistics are accurate, you personally shouldn't call an allin unless you are >70% to win.Please don't spout statistics until you have a reasonable sample size.Grinder has posted his statistics, and even though he has over 500 tournaments logged, I'm sure he will agree that it is in no way a large enough sample size to accurately show his true win%, ITM% or average ROI%.I apologise for the tone of these two posts. They are overly curt and sarcastic. You just seemed to be dogmatically ignoring the points we were making.

[GrinderMJ 0]

You can, it just requires estimation. Pokerstove simply isn't designed for it.Noone is denying that you have an edge. All we are saying is that your edge is not as large as you think it is.Yeah. I actually have no problem folding here. I think we are only about 37-40% against his range. I'll have to check pokerstove though.With your MTT stats, are you claiming you win 890 player tournaments 2.7% of the time? I'm guessing that's what you are saying. I could be wrong.890 = 2^xlog 890 = x log 2x = (log 890)/(log 2) = ~9.8You need to double up 9.8 times to win an 890 player tournament.y^9.8 = 0.027, where y is your probability of doubling through.9.8 log y = log 0.027log y = (1/9.8) log 0.027y = 0.027^(1/9.8) = 0.69So, if your statistics are accurate, you personally shouldn't call an allin unless you are >70% to win.Please don't spout statistics until you have a reasonable sample size.Grinder has posted his statistics, and even though he has over 500 tournaments logged, I'm sure he will agree that it is in no way a large enough sample size to accurately show his true win%, ITM% or average ROI%.I apologise for the tone of these two posts. They are overly curt and sarcastic. You just seemed to be dogmatically ignoring the points we were making.

1k tourneys played should be a good sample, I'd say I'm close total if you add my first accounts, but ya I'm still a little short.

[SlackerInc 0]

When I woke up this morning, strangely enough I was mulling this issue and thought of a caveat to my previous assertions. In a structure like PAD or a satellite that awards just one prize to first place, there would be no caveats since you need to collect all the chips or you get nothing. Best cash game strategy is pretty much the same as optimal tournament strategy. But in a flatter structure, the person who accumulates all the chips only gets a fraction of the prize pool. And those who straggle into the money with small stacks which they soon lose to the big stacks nevertheless get more money back than they put in (even if they never actually increased their starting stack by as great a proportion as the payout they get). So there does have to be some adjustment there--but it is hard to quantify. I guess this is the whole issue of EV vs. tEV. Most people would say that they are close to the same if you are far from the money; but even that is not quite right since you could go on the greatest tear of all time in the early going that would make you incredibly rich in a cash game, but even if you take 90% of the chips (or all the chips for that matter) in the first blind level, you still only get that same fraction of the prize pool for first place, and someone still gets every other prize that's awarded--even if only because they arrived late to the tournament and thus still had chips left when everyone else lost theirs! So if the blind structure is slow enough and if the payout structure is flat enough, and if the other players are weak enough, there may be some value to passing up early marginal edges. But that's a lot of "ifs".

[Zach6668 513]

I think something that a lot of people do, notably those who advocate passing up xx% edges, is think they're edge is massive.This is simply untrue. Poker is such a marginal game. Noboday has a massive edge in ANY form of poker. Poker is played on the marginal hands. Everyone is a winner with AA, KK, etc, but not everyone can win in the marginal postflop situations, but that edge is very small. It's just the nature of the game, where no hand is worse than a 4-1 dog preflop, etc. I'm not a real math guy, so I don't have much to back this up, but it's been discussed here and other forums. A great player's edge in a tourney is very small. Too small to pass up a 60/40, 55/45, etc.- Zach

[SCS 0]

I don't play nearly enough MTTs to make any sort of accurate statistical analysis, but I use to be the "survivalist" type player, never willing to get my chips in with less than a big edge. However, since changing my MTT strategy I have noticed a significant improvement in my results.Are there situations where I'd give up a small edge in a tournament? Probably, but this is definitely not one of those situations.

[simo_8ball 0]

When I woke up this morning, strangely enough I was mulling this issue and thought of a caveat to my previous assertions. In a structure like PAD or a satellite that awards just one prize to first place, there would be no caveats since you need to collect all the chips or you get nothing. Best cash game strategy is pretty much the same as optimal tournament strategy. But in a flatter structure, the person who accumulates all the chips only gets a fraction of the prize pool. And those who straggle into the money with small stacks which they soon lose to the big stacks nevertheless get more money back than they put in (even if they never actually increased their starting stack by as great a proportion as the payout they get). So there does have to be some adjustment there--but it is hard to quantify. I guess this is the whole issue of EV vs. tEV. Most people would say that they are close to the same if you are far from the money; but even that is not quite right since you could go on the greatest tear of all time in the early going that would make you incredibly rich in a cash game, but even if you take 90% of the chips (or all the chips for that matter) in the first blind level, you still only get that same fraction of the prize pool for first place, and someone still gets every other prize that's awarded--even if only because they arrived late to the tournament and thus still had chips left when everyone else lost theirs! So if the blind structure is slow enough and if the payout structure is flat enough, and if the other players are weak enough, there may be some value to passing up early marginal edges. But that's a lot of "ifs".

That's where ICM comes in. The thing is, whatever the pay structure, as long as you are a good way from the money, cEV = $EV.If you double your chips on the first hand of a tournament, you have twice the chance of winning overall. Most people really don't understand that because they think it is so far away.

I think something that a lot of people do, notably those who advocate passing up xx% edges, is think they're edge is massive.This is simply untrue. Poker is such a marginal game. Noboday has a massive edge in ANY form of poker. Poker is played on the marginal hands. Everyone is a winner with AA, KK, etc, but not everyone can win in the marginal postflop situations, but that edge is very small. It's just the nature of the game, where no hand is worse than a 4-1 dog preflop, etc. I'm not a real math guy, so I don't have much to back this up, but it's been discussed here and other forums. A great player's edge in a tourney is very small. Too small to pass up a 60/40, 55/45, etc.- Zach

To add to this, if you imagine every situation with every hand combination, most people are going to play the big hands generally the same. Profit in poker doesn't come from getting allin with AA vs KK, because that situation would theoretically reverse itself at some point and you would lose the same amount.Profit comes from finding the edges your opponents wouldn't. Any standard situation is not one in which you have an edge. If your opponents play it the same way, it is EV neutral.

[RhinestoneCowboy 2]

I look at it like this. If you had 99 and I had AK off, would you put everything you own, assets, cash, personal property, everything, on the line in hopes of doubling it because you were a 6 to 5 favorite? What if you knew that you could work with those assests and at your job to slowly make more and more money in the future, but if you lost you were broke for the rest of your life? If you were sick in the head you might, but its EVERYTHING at risk on a slight favorite situation. It's the same case here. In this specific tournament, the hero has a bankroll of 3500 or whatever. Why would he put it all at risk when he's not even sure if he's slightly behind, and he could be far behind? Tournament poker is about surviving and thriving. You can thrive much easier later on without having to risk not surviving at all later.

Apples to not Apples. A tournament isn't "every asset you have". That is why we have bankroll managment.

Don't be a sarcastic prick. We're all here to help each other. Look me up on the pokerdb and tell me what percentage of times I have been in the money compared to the best online players in the world. Like I said granted I play for smaller stakes, but I still like my approach.Answer me this question.You have played your friend heads up 1,000 times. You have beat him 780 of those times. The 1,001st time you play him, with 5,000 chips to start, 25,50 blinds that never go up, he moves all in on preflop the first hand, and you look at AKo/s. Based on his range, you know are a 55% favorite to win, because you went to your computer and looked it up on pokerstove. However based on your history of playing flops with him, you are a 78% favorite to win the match.Would you still call just because this is a +EV spot? Calling here is a big mistake because you will only win 55% of the time by calling, and you will win 78% of the time by playing flops against him.

Apples to not apples. I'm going out on a limb and assuming that the blinds go up in this tournament. Heads up is a lot different than full ring, and my friend is a complete donk.

[SlackerInc 0]

That's where ICM comes in. The thing is, whatever the pay structure, as long as you are a good way from the money, cEV = $EV.If you double your chips on the first hand of a tournament, you have twice the chance of winning overall. Most people really don't understand that because they think it is so far away.

But that wasn't my point; and I think you are making a logical error here (and Snyder may be making the error as well). Again, in a winner-take-all tournament, what you say would be true. But in tournaments with other structures, getting 100% of the chips only gets you some fraction of the prize pool those chips represented at the beginning. You can't win everyone's money no matter how well you outplay them (or how poorly they play), because the rules prevent you from doing so. Even if every other player left and allowed themselves to be blinded out, you could only get that fraction of their buyins that goes to first place.Here's an extreme and simplified example to show what I mean. Imagine it's the first hand of a single table SNG where top three get paid: 50% of the prize pool for first, 30% for second, and 20% for third. You are on the button, having limped in with K2 of spades in a true family pot (but the pot only contains t180; every player has exactly t1480 left). Flop is 6 of spades, 8 of diamonds, Q of hearts, and it was checked all the way around. Turn is A of spades, and from the BB to the CO, every player has gone all in, and the only remaining action for this hand is for you to call or fold. Now, if this were a cash game or a winner-take all tourney, it would be an easy call. But it's a bad call in this scenario. Again, this is an extreme example, but it does show that even at the beginning of the tournament it's not true to say that "cEV = $EV". There is always some extra mathematical value to survival, even if it's not as great as many people believe. Having twice the chance of winning the tournament is not the same as making twice as much money on average (again, unless it is winner take all).

[simo_8ball 0]

But that wasn't my point; and I think you are making a logical error here (and Snyder may be making the error as well). Again, in a winner-take-all tournament, what you say would be true. But in tournaments with other structures, getting 100% of the chips only gets you some fraction of the prize pool those chips represented at the beginning. You can't win everyone's money no matter how well you outplay them (or how poorly they play), because the rules prevent you from doing so. Even if every other player left and allowed themselves to be blinded out, you could only get that fraction of their buyins that goes to first place.Here's an extreme and simplified example to show what I mean. Imagine it's the first hand of a single table SNG where top three get paid: 50% of the prize pool for first, 30% for second, and 20% for third. You are on the button, having limped in with K2 of spades in a true family pot (but the pot only contains t180; every player has exactly t1480 left). Flop is 6 of spades, 8 of diamonds, Q of hearts, and it was checked all the way around. Turn is A of spades, and from the BB to the CO, every player has gone all in, and the only remaining action for this hand is for you to call or fold. Now, if this were a cash game or a winner-take all tourney, it would be an easy call. But it's a bad call in this scenario. Again, this is an extreme example, but it does show that even at the beginning of the tournament it's not true to say that "cEV = $EV". There is always some extra mathematical value to survival, even if it's not as great as many people believe. Having twice the chance of winning the tournament is not the same as making twice as much money on average (again, unless it is winner take all).

That's where ICM comes in. The thing is, whatever the pay structure, as long as you are a good way from the money, cEV = $EV.If you double your chips on the first hand of a tournament, you have twice the chance of winning overall. Most people really don't understand that because they think it is so far away.

[SlackerInc 0]

No, you still missed my point, simo. What about my last sentence: "Having twice the chance of winning the tournament is not the same as making twice as much money on average (again, unless it is winner take all)."So I'll use another example: let's say you are in a very large MTT (2,000 participants) with a weak field, and only 200 get paid. Scenario 1: By the time the first level is over, there are 1700 players left, and you have five times your starting stack.Scenario 2: By the time the first level is over, there are 1500 players left, and you have two hundred times your starting stack. Imagine you get to replay scenario 1 and scenario 2 over from this point forward to the end (you bust out at some point or win the tournament) a thousand times each, and then compute your average winnings. Do you really believe they will be forty times higher in Scenario 2? Let's assume that you won the whole thing every time in Scenario 2 (a little optimistic considering that you only have ten percent of the chips in play). Are you only going to average 1/40th of the winner's paycheck in Scenario 1? Are you not a little bit better player than that if you have a big stack to work with?

[Footballguru 0]

IMO this is standard insta call...if the SB truly had AA or KK dont you think he would raise to like 900 or 1k here and not just push? Also it helps if he insta pushed he is prob not as strong as if he waited ~5 seconds to push...i didnt look to see if results were posted so maybe he did have AA/KK and im an idiot...But I feel like SB's range here is pretty big (relatively speaking, possibly 77+ak(VERY possible u are splitting with AK here, AQ, and MAYBE even AJS)

[simo_8ball 0]

No, you still missed my point, simo. What about my last sentence: "Having twice the chance of winning the tournament is not the same as making twice as much money on average (again, unless it is winner take all)."So I'll use another example: let's say you are in a very large MTT (2,000 participants) with a weak field, and only 200 get paid. Scenario 1: By the time the first level is over, there are 1700 players left, and you have five times your starting stack.Scenario 2: By the time the first level is over, there are 1500 players left, and you have two hundred times your starting stack. Imagine you get to replay scenario 1 and scenario 2 over from this point forward to the end (you bust out at some point or win the tournament) a thousand times each, and then compute your average winnings. Do you really believe they will be forty times higher in Scenario 2? Let's assume that you won the whole thing every time in Scenario 2 (a little optimistic considering that you only have ten percent of the chips in play). Are you only going to average 1/40th of the winner's paycheck in Scenario 1? Are you not a little bit better player than that if you have a big stack to work with?

If you are a long way from the money, cEV closely approximates $EV. That is a generally accepted fact. Starting the WSOP main event with 20k instead of 10k gives you double equity.Your example is ridiculous, but you will have about 40 x chance of winning, yes. Your overall equity won't be 40xgreater though. As you take things to extremes, obviously equities will become warped.Paul Phillips: "I've said I'll take ANY edge (or even ANY COIN FLIP) early, and that NOBODY is good enough to intentionally refuse a 60/40 edge early. Repeatedly applying a 60/40 edge would make you one of the top players in tournament poker."Bottom line is, if Phillips/Raymer/Ferguson aren't willing to pass up an edge, in general I'm not.

[mjd 0]

Answer me this question.You have played your friend heads up 1,000 times. You have beat him 780 of those times. The 1,001st time you play him, with 5,000 chips to start, 25,50 blinds that never go up, he moves all in on preflop the first hand, and you look at AKo/s. Based on his range, you know are a 55% favorite to win, because you went to your computer and looked it up on pokerstove. However based on your history of playing flops with him, you are a 78% favorite to win the match.Would you still call just because this is a +EV spot? Calling here is a big mistake because you will only win 55% of the time by calling, and you will win 78% of the time by playing flops against him.

Assuming our average tournament takes much longer than one hand and also assuming that he'll play me again soon, probably immediately (which I believe are both valid assumtions given we've already played him 1000 times), I instacall since it is my estimation that this is the way to maximize the $/hr I can make vs him.

[SlackerInc 0]

If you are a long way from the money, cEV closely approximates $EV. That is a generally accepted fact. Starting the WSOP main event with 20k instead of 10k gives you double equity.Your example is ridiculous, but you will have about 40 x chance of winning, yes. Your overall equity won't be 40xgreater though. As you take things to extremes, obviously equities will become warped.Paul Phillips: "I've said I'll take ANY edge (or even ANY COIN FLIP) early, and that NOBODY is good enough to intentionally refuse a 60/40 edge early. Repeatedly applying a 60/40 edge would make you one of the top players in tournament poker."Bottom line is, if Phillips/Raymer/Ferguson aren't willing to pass up an edge, in general I'm not.

I didn't dispute that you have 40x the chance of winning (just that you don't have 40x the equity), but I'm thinking that maybe I should. I'll mull that one some more.And I agree with not passing up 60/40 edges, hell no. I'm thinking more in the neighbourhood of say a three way pot where you have a 35% chance to win.

[copernicus 0]

I didn't dispute that you have 40x the chance of winning (just that you don't have 40x the equity), but I'm thinking that maybe I should. I'll mull that one some more.

You dont have 40x the ICM cash equity. If your probability of winning has gone from 1/n to 40/n, then your probability of any other paying spot cant also go up 40x or youd have a greater than 1 probability of finishing in the first n (ie all) of the spots, (how much each one goes down depends on n), so your cash equity from first place has gone up exactly 40x, but your cash equity from each other paying spot has gone up by less than 40x, so the total has gone up less than 40x.That is the source of the "additional chips lose equity" paradox.

[NEtwowilldo 0]

This may be the longest strat thread I have ever seen.

[SlackerInc 0]

You dont have 40x the ICM cash equity. If your probability of winning has gone from 1/n to 40/n, then your probability of any other paying spot cant also go up 40x or youd have a greater than 1 probability of finishing in the first n (ie all) of the spots, (how much each one goes down depends on n), so your cash equity from first place has gone up exactly 40x, but your cash equity from each other paying spot has gone up by less than 40x, so the total has gone up less than 40x.That is the source of the "additional chips lose equity" paradox.

In other words...I was right. (Right?)

[simo_8ball 0]

In other words...I was right. (Right?)

Yeah. But, early in a tournament the discrepancy between cEV ad $EV is small. In (say) a standard 1000 player tournament with top 100 paid, starting with 2xchips gives you both 2 x the chance of winning, and I would say >1.95 x overall equity.The flatter the payout structure and the more extreme you make the chip jump the more $EV diverges (10xstack I would say will only give ~9xequity as a rough guess, and 40xstack woul only give ~32xequity). Those could be way off the mark, but in any case they serve to illustrate the point.Certainly, in any normal situation early in a MTT, you should not pass up on any reasonably +cEV situation, because you cost yourself $EV as well.

[SlackerInc 0]

Yeah. But, early in a tournament the discrepancy between cEV ad $EV is small. In (say) a standard 1000 player tournament with top 100 paid, starting with 2xchips gives you both 2 x the chance of winning, and I would say >1.95 x overall equity.

I was thinking about this some more, and I'm still not sure it's quite accurate to say 2x the chance of winning. I think that would depend on whether you are better than the average player in the tournament, and whether your particular skill set is magnified by having a big stack (in which case it might be greater than 2x) or whether you are particularly good at managing a small stack (in which case it might be less).