[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's complete nonsense to say you'd pass on some $EV now for more $EV later. You'd never pass on $EV, ever, because it would be throwing money away, by definition.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not correct. Counterexample: You have $100 and
Joe offers you $200 to $100 on the flip of a coin. But you
know that tomorrow, Bill will offer $500 for the same gamble,
and if you lose the $100 today, you won't be able to make
tomorrow's bet. You should pass up todays +ev bet for the
better bet tomorrow.

Sklansky has discussion of this in his Tournament Poker for Advanced
Players. But I'm sure you've read this, so your statement
surprises me.

Suerte,
Jonathan

[/ QUOTE ]

All you've done here is offered a new game consisting of a sequence of bets, and then are claiming that a $EV for the first game does not apply to this new, different game. That shouldn't be too surprising.

This doesn't contradict what I said at all, you've just demonstrated one of an infinite number of ways to misapply the concept.

The metagame of being offered the two games in sequence has it's own $EV. You have to apply $EV to the correct game for it to be meaningful.

In any case, I believe the TPFAP examples are chip EV in the first place. I found the book almost laughably elementary so I don't own a copy to check.

Returning to the topic at hand, the effect you're describing of getting better bets later in the tournament is already accounted for in $EV. Your example does not illustrate anything relevant, and it certainly doesn't refute my claim. What you have to understand is that $EV is defined in such a way that my statement can't be anything but entirely correct.

eastbay