[ QUOTE ]
I believe(ed) that SnGs are the simplest form of poker. They have the most advanced mathematical framework (besides HU). Included in this is the ICM theory, central to which is the concept that chips have decreasing marginal utility in a tournement.
But, sometimes I want to throw it all out the window. When you read
about wierd plays by Gigabet, , it makes you wonder.
I am one of those 'tight' players who can't turn the 800 into 2000, I just have an extra 800 chips. And I suspect 95+% of posters in this forum are the same, or worse in this regard.
I know in my heart that Daniel N. and Gigabet are right in this concept and that Sklansky et al. are wrong, I just can't 'prove' it. And I don't know how to exploit it.
If you were going to experiment with this concept that chips could have INCREASING marginal utility/value what would you study? What situations would you play differently? How would your approach to SnGs change?
[/ QUOTE ]
Here's the key part you're missing--Gigabet and Daniel N. are MUCH better players than you (and me) and are capable of making VERY advanced reads. They also play this style consistently and are aware that their opponents know how they play, and adjust according.
So Sklansky isn't wrong. And neither is Gigabet or Daniel N. There are different styles and different ways to win. Some (Dan Harrington, Dewey Tomko) are rocks, and some (Gus Hansen) are wild.