SlackerInc, on Tuesday, April 17th, 2007, 9:21 PM, said:
Yet (still being slightly devil's advocate here) there is a fair amount of money in those other spots collectively. Let's take for example the MTT that is stickied here in strat: the $20+2 180. The top three spots (1.67% of the field) are indeed juicy: $2228 of the $3600 prize pool, so they're averaging over $750 each in prize money. But still, there are five times as many, fifteen other people (8.33% of the field), who on average are pocketing nearly a hundred bucks each on a $20 investment. Surely the optimal strategy for such a structure cannot be identical to the optimal strategy if that same $3600 went only to the top three finishers and everyone else got zilch? Yet in that latter structure, you really would, in a pure sense, be playing for the top three spots. So if you would not want to play the identical way in the structure as it really is, you must be at least throwing in a little titch, a sprinkle, of "playing to make the money". No?
No, you girl. ;)These thoughts are too deep for me. I kind of agree with you, I've argued before many times that playing to make the money isn't mutually exclusive from playing to win. When I have my most tourney success I'm much more a survivalist that plays a great short stack than I am an accumulator that pounds the shorts. Maybe that's because it's harder to successfully be the accumulator, or maybe it's because I eternally run poor. I'd like to think it's the latter, but I'm fairly sure it's the former.That being said, this thread is ridiculous and it's an easy shove (or call) I forget what the situation is now, just that it's standard.