"A Counter-Intuitive Tournament Play"

[Sabrazack]

I just read this article in the monthly 2+2 magazine. And it really seemed like utter basics of tournament play to me. Then i realized i probably would not have come to the correct conclusion had i seen this hand 6 or so months ago.

Seems i actually have gotten better at this stuff since when i started. Only it happens so slow you don't really notice it.

Edit: Oh, and thanks for linking the article, didn't think about that...

[pergesu]

The article (http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/current/streib1005.html) to which he's referring

I don't think that the article is counter-intuitive at all--- even when I'm up against novice players at the end of a MTT, they appear to understand this.

HOWEVER--- what I find is more interesting is that fact that in many instances, for many players, this analysis is wrong.

Consider a player like Paul Phillips, who is not interested as much in the first place prize money as he is in first place...

Or--- consider this year's WSOP main event. Within two weeks of the conclusion, Hachem had already doubled his winnings through endorsement deals and sponsorships... an anlaysis like this fails to take this potential into account.

Definitely from an immediate EV perspective, there's no argument... many times there are other considerations though.