Originally Posted by Lheticus
I notice ALL the threads I start that require thought tend to be like ghost towns...nevertheless, you've refined my thoughts excellently, WiZZiM.
Way to bash a whole forum, bud.
Truth is, what you're talking about has already been thought about and discussed extensively on the internet, so maybe people just don't take the time to respond to a long-winded statement about chipEV vs. $EV.
You can bemoan bad luck all you want in such a case, but the fact of the matter is that even on an 80% chance of victory, all that means is one out of five times, you will still lose.
Actually it means that one out of 5 times you lose X, and 4 out of 5 times you win a pot worth Y chips that increases your chances of winning the tournament by a factor of Z. You're only focusing on situations of high risk. But the thing is that your tournament life has very, VERY little inherent value early on past the amount you bought in for. Likewise your odds of winning the tournament are not greatly increased by winning any given pot. So chipEV and $EV are remarkably close.
Again from OP:
Again, exactly none of this thought process is relevant in cash games, because in there, you do get into the long run--but as I've said in another thread, a poker tournament is far too microcosmic to EVER get into the long run--even the World Series Main Event, with 8 full days of live play, doesn't even come close. Since the only thing that exists is the short run, there are myriad things in tournaments to consider that would simply be superfluous in a cash game--and as such, playing pure +EV isn't just not the best strategy--it's folly.
You're using logical fallacies to support bogus theories. Your statement about one poker tournament not ever coming close to the long run is obviously true. But you completely avoid the concept of using multiple tournaments to reach the long run. I'm not saying you can ever get to the long run in live tournaments, but it can be done online.
But also, it's not even a question of the long run or not. It's STILL a question of EV (in a general sense, not chipEV). Would you rather take a 5% chance at $1,000,000 or a 50% at $50,000? This kind of gets more into utility, so let's ask it a different way.
Let's say you're not on the bubble in a tournament, just in a standard situation, at least a few levels away from bubble play. You have a decent, approximately average stack of 30bb. Are you folding AA pre if not folding means you'd be all in? Because this is almost exactly what you're suggesting in your example of losing 1/5.
Winning doesn't put you at a MUCH higher probability of winning, but it DOES mean that you're much less likely to have to be all in or at risk soon. And consider that if you're not putting your money in here, you will likely have to do so later with a smaller stack, a smaller equity advantage, and a less significant resulting stack even when you win.
If after all that you still think that you should be folding AA preflop vs. an effective all in (again, this is what your OP is saying), then more power to you, and I look forward to meeting you on the felt and shoving vs. you every time we get HU. You may eventually flop the stone cold nuts, but you won't have many chips by the time that happens.
I honestly don't know why I respond to these, since most people who post something like this are unwilling to change their views, but meh, there you go. I'm unwilling to address your utility concerns ("how much is a min-cash worth to me"), since I'll assume you're actually buying into tourneys you can afford. Therefore min-cashes shouldn't really ever present massive utility differences. The utility difference between winning $0 and winning $mincash should never be so large that you pass up a +$EV spot for a greater chance at $mincash.