[MLG]

I stated in a recent post that folding the best hand in the midstages of a tournament is far worse than folding the best hand in a cash game. I thought I might unpack that statement and think about some of the implications of it.

In a cash game it costs you money if you fold the best hand (or more accurately a hand that is ahead of the range your opponent might fold). In a tournament, however, not only does folding the best hand cost you chips, it also costs you the opportunity to invest those chips in +EV situations. This is something along the lines of a second order effect, which in this case exaggerates the first order effect.

However, this raises a question. Is there a time when the second order effect, that is the amount of chips you can win from putting chips you win now into +EV situations, changes what would normally be a slightly -EV situation, into a positive one. In other words, can the chips you give yourself a chance to win later in effect make-up for the chips you lose on average calling now.

One counter argument to this idea is that if the gamble will knock you out then you will not have the opportunity to win chips later. This however, speaks to the idea that a big stack is important. It allows you to take gambles based on the second order effect because losing the gamble will not knock you out, or seriously harm you.


Poker is freaking complicated.