Interesting Article

[Sprayed]

Some of you might have read this already. I got this from 2+2. For those of you who have not seen it, take a look.
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_maga...093&m_id=65576

[nutsinho]

This article is persuasive yet useless. How often do you actually see your opponent's hole cards? What if you don't see that he's got AK? Calling here would be foolish without a read.

Furthermore, what's this about calculating your chances of winning the tournament? Shouldn't you be calculating EV by considering chances of all ITM finishes? Sure, not even the best players win tourneys five times more often than average players, but I bet they do cash out five times as much money. Do you think Phil Ivey is calling off his stack in the situation discussed? I really doubt it, unless he has his eyes on a big side game.

[DaNutsInYoEye]

This article is persuasive yet useless. How often do you actually see your opponent's hole cards? What if you don't see that he's got AK? Calling here would be foolish without a read.

Furthermore, what's this about calculating your chances of winning the tournament? Shouldn't you be calculating EV by considering chances of all ITM finishes? Sure, not even the best players win tourneys five times more often than average players, but I bet they do cash out five times as much money. Do you think Phil Ivey is calling off his stack in the situation discussed? I really doubt it, unless he has his eyes on a big side game.

You're missing the point of the article and focusing too much on the examples he used. Of course you're not going to be able to see your opponents hole cards often, if ever. Matros states that it is a hypothetical situation. He used it as an example to support his position that you shouldn't be afraid to push you're edges, even if they are small. He is making the argument that you should choose a play that will make you the most money in the long run. That is hard to argue against.

The math he used is applicable to all ITM finishes, not just winning a tournament. You're again focsuing on the wrong thing.

[TanO]

I probably wouldn't do this in the situation described. In cash games the edge would be worth taking, long term. But tournaments are short term, they're this set of consecutive hands. If he's put to 10 decisions like this in 1 tournament, he has to win THEM ALL in order to survive and cash, the probability of which is -

The probability of getting heads on one toss is 1/2. The probability of getting heads on the second toss is(1/2)(1/2)= 1/4.

The probability of getting heads 10 times in a row is (1/2)^10 = 1/1024

Matt says he doubled up 67 times in 127 tournaments, he doesnt say how many were consecutive, the argument doesnt take into account that you need a consecutive run of successful coinflips in order to win like this.

One of the most useful things I ever heard about poker was when Ivey got busted from the wsop in 2004 he said "It was the first time I was allin the whole tournament"

[Pingviini]

One of the most useful things I ever heard about poker was when Ivey got busted from the wsop in 2004 he said "It was the first time I was allin the whole tournament"

And that was when he had a boat on turn against Chris Moneymaker who sucked out on him, poor Phil finished in 10th place

we have had some discussions whether people here are "accumulators(taking risks/flips)" or "survivalists". I belong to the latter category, I just hate putting my tournament life on line on a flip or by calling with otherwise marginal hands. cEV is definitely not equivalent to $EV in tournaments, especially when it is still early.