ROI, coinflips, and so on

Some argue that it is better to try to win 1st in a tourney. Others are happy with just cashing.

Neither is wrong. Think finance.

Some investors are risk averse. They want 5% return with minimum risk. They prefer a portfolio weighted (with risk-free asset - t-bill) that gives them some return with minimum variance.

Some investors want big returns and dont mind taking on extra risk. They might prefer a portfolio heavy on risky assets such as stocks and unhedged derivatives. That person makes more when he scores but can often lose for months/years at a time.

So, say u r in WSOP. If you are somewhat risk averse, you might employ a strategy that cashes u each year (or most years) for about $80k each time. The guy who wants risk, prefers to try to win it, but busts out before cashing most times.

Nothing wrong with trying to cash.

[illegit]

Playing with the mindset you're just trying to cash and leek into the money is usually just as risky if not more so. Chip accumulation is not important just for increasing your chances to win; it's important for increasing your chances to last longer and therefore cash more often.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
So, say u r in WSOP. If you are somewhat risk averse, you might employ a strategy that cashes u each year (or most years) for about $80k each time. The guy who wants risk, prefers to try to win it, but busts out before cashing most times.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a very poor analogy IMO. the player who courts risk early will probably have only slightly less ITM finishes than the safe player. and the safe player will have a significantly smaller % of FTs, or even top 1% of the field, which is where the real money is in tourneys.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing with the mindset you're just trying to cash and leek into the money is usually just as risky if not more so.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes. its almost cerainly more risky in the sense that this players will be way more likely to be in the negative after 100, or even 500 touneys. his SD will be slightly lower, but his EV will also be WAY lower , meaning the negative steaks will last longer.

[ QUOTE ]
the player who courts risk early will probably have only slightly less ITM finishes than the safe player.

[/ QUOTE ]

u sure about that?

[pfkaok]

well, i'm pretty sure the very good, risk taking players will make the money nearly as often as a safe player, even a very good safe player. to make the money you need to outlast 90% of the field. usually that means doubling up 3 times(or at least close) if you're avoiding too many +EV risks early on, you won't have THAT many chances do double up.

also think about this. the safe players who always look for the edge are always the ones who complain about their "awful beats" that knocked them out. when the aggressive, risk seeking players survives an early double up and has chips, he can afford to take a "bad beat" or two, and often still have a playable stack.

[ QUOTE ]


So, say u r in WSOP. If you are somewhat risk averse, you might employ a strategy that cashes u each year (or most years) for about $80k each time. The guy who wants risk, prefers to try to win it, but busts out before cashing most times.

Nothing wrong with trying to cash.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that there is no such strategy to finish in the money <font color="red"> most </font> of the time.

If you took away all 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place finishes, it's unlikely anyone could make even a modest profit over the long term.