[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Get yourself in enough positions is a big tourney where even your 'only' a 2-1 favorite for all your chips with a field of 1000+, your not winning that tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

I imagine that If I constantly got all my money in as a 2-1 favorite I would win so many tournies it would be ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get all your money in as a 2-1 favorite 12 times and you win them all less than one percent of the time.

The key methinks is to get SOME of your money in as a favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's already been posted but obviously I would not always be covered by my opponent, at least not after the first few times I double up anyways. I think passing up opportunities to get your money in as a 2-1 favorite because it's risking your tournament is just incredibly weak tight. I'll stand by my statement that I would be a ridiculous winner if I got the money in every time I had a 2-1 edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if you were covered each time you got your money in you'd still be doing extremely well. Hypothetically if you only bet when you were a 2:1 favorite, always went all-in, were always called by a equal-sized stack, and could never tie, you would need to win 10 straight all-ins to win a 1,024 person tournament. You'd only have a 1.7% chance of winning these all-ins. However, that would mean you'd be about 17.8x more likely than the average person to win the tournament (the average person would have a 1/1024 chance as opposed to you with a 1/57 chance). Even if you only placed first and never were in the money other than winning, you'd have a 7.1x tournament equity (assuming first is 40%). Any tournament pro would take those numbers, even Phil Hellmuth. But even Phil isn't that good.