2nd chance freezeout - what is the optimal strategy?

[CurryLover]

I'm playing in a £300 NL hold'em tourney next week that has a unique feature. It is a 'second chance freezeout' tourney. What this means is that you get 2 lots of starting chips for your money, and so if you go bust you get a second chance. There are 2 options:

1. Start with the first lot of chips and leave the second lot in reserve. If you go bust you get these second chips given to you so you have a 'second chance'.

2. Start with all your chips. That way, you will have more chips in play so can profit if you are able to double through. However, if you go bust you are out of the tourney.

After 90 mins, any player who hasn't claimed his second lot of chips is automatically given them. From then on it is a traditional freezeout. Also, I believe that if you take option 1 but then find yourself short-stacked you can claim your second lot of chips at any time you want (i.e. you don't have to wait till you go bust or the 90 mins is up).

I'm wondering whether I should take both lots of chips right away or leave the second lot in reserve. What do you guuys think?

[Chief911]

I think the optimal strategy here is to take them right away. That gives you the maximum benefit when you can double through someone playing too loose. Just make sure you aren't that person playing too loose because of all your chips.

Nick

[DaffyDuck]

Isn't this pretty much the same as a tourney that allows only one rebuy or addon?

I would take it right away. That way you have deeper money and if you double up, well.. It's double :-)

Bob

[CurryLover]

OK, but is there another way of looking at it? I think there are two advantages to be gained from only taking half:

1. You can take a few more chances in the earely stage in order to build up a decent amount of chips because you know you have a second chance. So you wouldn't need to pass on marginal edges.
2. You have two chances to go all-in. Since being all-in is an advantage (Sklansky talks about this in one of his books, I think TPFAP) this seems to be a good thing.

I was considering the following hypothetical situations:

A) You take the full amount of chips and have lost almost half of them. There is a raise, no callers, and you are on the button with something like 55. You obviously pass.

B) Same situation exactly, but this time you only took the ffirst lot of chips. This means you are almost out of chips. Now you can go all in and take your chance of doubling up, hoping your opponent has AK or whatever.

I am sure there are some definite advantages to keeping half the chips in reserve. What I want to know is do these advantages compensate for not having as much ammunition on the table?

Any thoughts from others?

[ClaytonN]

Add-on immediately