An affordability question
Recently we've had some discussions about the value and advisability of calling large raises with only small advantages. The prevailing consensus is that it's better ring strategy than tournament strategy. In regards to the ring games, the mantra seems to be, "if you can't afford to make the call, you're playing at too high a limit", but that has always seemed to me to be more of a repremand than an answer. This kind of blanket statement is taken as conventional wisdom and rarely gets challenged despite the likelyhood that, upon occasion, we all step up a level or 2 in limits; if for no other reason than to stretch our wings. Even if the next level up is still affordable, it's unqestionably less so regardless of the size of your BR.
I'm not sure that there's a one size fits all strategy for poker. I would think that the less affordable the limit is, the more important it becomes to reduce variance. Could it be that under certain conditions, one could to let some borderline positive EV oportunities pass at higher, therefore less affordable limits, and still have a possitive expectation for the session as a whole?
I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this, but I've attached a poll to encourage participation from some of our members who might be reluctant to post a reply.