[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
My question is how much this flexibility is worth, and how much it offsets the general principle that tournament chips decline in marginal utility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its funny that you post this, as I was going to post something similar.

We all take for granted that the more chips you have, the less each individual chip is worth.

You mention marginal utility and I think that is the correct approach to this question. It helps that economics isn't afraid of variables that can change with individuals.

I was thinking of it this way:

When we assume that chips ALWAYS decline in value as the amount you accumulate increases, we ignore the ability of a chip to generate more chips.

At some point the next chip is worth more than a current chip as the next chips adds greater ability to generate more chips.

I am not saying that Mason is entirely wrong, but that the function of chip values is not a constant delcine as your stack increases, but rather increases at some point, which is probably a function of:

a) blinds size

b) your stack size

c) stack size of opponents (opponents at your table, not the "average for the tourney") I can only bully those at my table, not the entire tourney. If the tourney average is 15BB's and I have a 30BB stack and everyone else at my table has 60BB then my 30BB isn't worth nearly as much as it would be if everyone at my table had 10BB's. Tourney average stack is a useless stat.

d) your ability to gains chips as a result of having more chips.

e) motivation for opponents to play weak-tight (bubble considerations, etc)

Taking all of this into account is best served with economic models that can quantify such nebulous variables.

Unfortunately I am over 10 years removed from any senior level undergrad economics/stats/finance and am woefully underequipped to take on that task.

I do think it starts down the right path though.

Regards,
Woodguy