[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
First off, a guy that makes this kind of play is probably the worst player at the table if not the tournament. I figure to be able to get a decent chunk of this guys chips in better situations anyway. Why rush?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eight other players at the table are probably thinking the same thing. With all that competition, do you really think you have a better than 54% shot later on to take ALL his chips?
Here is your chance to beat the rest of the table to it. Opportunity has presented itself. Seize the day!

[ QUOTE ]
- Second, I'm starting out with 0.1% of the chips. If I double first hand .... ok fine ..... I now have 0.2%. Am I realistically any less or more of a favorite to get to the money or finish high in the money? IMHO, no.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO, you are twice as likely to finish in the money. Do you see why?

[ QUOTE ]
Third, if I decide to lay that hand down, I make sure to show everyone that I'm laying it down. It is a classic dump, purposely intended to make people fire at will at me. It loosens people up and makes it more likely that they will be trying to outplay me with lesser hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

At what point will you be willing to take a stand, though? You won't get AA or KK enough. I'd be willing to bet you end up folding lots of hands "waiting for a better spot" until it's too late.

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, there is one fatal flaw in the Matros argument. Yes Matros counts down the number of times he has doubled up. He also states correctly that he is doing well by doubling up in the majority of his all-ins. Ok, fine, I'll buy that.

However, what he fails to do is establish any correlation between the points of the tournaments at which he made his doubles, versus the eventual finish in the tournament.

If asked in reality, I would doubt seriously that he would admit to pushing all-in during the first hand or first orbit of a major tournament ....... ever!!

[/ QUOTE ]
He has probably never had a situation where he has seen his opponent's cards after he pushed all-in, though. So what is your point? The example is illustrative of a principle, not a tournament situation one expects to encounter.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's take the argument two steps further.

- Replace the two Queens with two Jacks. Do you still make the call? The odds are almost the same.

- Replace the two Queens with two Tens. Do you still make the call? The odds are almost the same.

If you can't answer yes to the same question for the QQ, JJ and TT, then there is a flaw in the logic. You either call with all 3 or lay down all three. If you follow Matros' logic, then you call with everything down to about 55, or you fold with everything. Who in their right mind would do that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would because I'm not under the delusion that over the course of the tournament I'm going to have a better shot of getting to 20,000 chips in the long run.

But Spee, you and I have been down this road before. I feel as though you treat each tournament individually as a contest to survive as long as possible without looking at the plays that will maximize your ROI in the long run. I actually posted this to specifically address the mentality you (and others) exhibit; Matros has done a clear and concise job of explaining it and backing it up with math. I have attempted to do so in the past with theory and philosophy (and eloquence, I hope), so I feel I have no more to say on the subject.