trying to get this through my thick head

[lacky]

Lot's of you guys say it's best to play very few hands and take almost no chances early. I am trying to understand this. A scenario:

1) I'm playing 8 tables, play aggressively against the morons early and have 1500 chips (average, and yes, that could be optimistic) on 6 tables, busted out on 2, at level 4.

2) I play no hands and have 855 chips on 8 tables at level 4.

lots of you say #2 is better, but I still don't understand why. I still need to get those chips somewhere, as at $55 and $109 your not likely to make it without improving. So I have to steal lots of blinds or survive a 50/50'ish to get to where I'm at in situation #1.

What am I missing?

Steve

BTW gotta take my kid to music leason's, so will be gone an hour

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
(average, and yes, that could be optimistic)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where your logic breaks down. If you can double up on 6 out of 8 tables by level 4, by whatever means, then you should definately do it.

[lacky]

well, these are 1000 chip starting tables, so I used a 50% increase in the example, but at what increase would you draw the line?

[lorinda]

What am I missing?

From memory (I said I'd look it up and didn't) you'll get AA,KK,QQ or AK once in 35, that means halfway through level four on average you'll have played one big pot and probably doubled or bust (you get the idea).

Of course some of the time you'll get repeated garbage and others you'll get two good hands, sometimes everyone will fold, but not very often at lower limits.
Simplified, but you get the idea.

Lori