sklansky on decreasing marginal chip value

[schwza]

i'm having a discussion with somebody about sklansky's position on decreasing marginal chip value, but i don't own TPFAP (i know, i know).

my understanding is that his position is that you should never take an even-money gamble in a tournament because chips always have a decreasing marginal value. is this correct?

a relevant quote would be much appreciated [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

(cross-posted in MTT)

[JackWilson]

Unless you're bad [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
my understanding is that his position is that you should never take an even-money gamble in a tournament because chips always have a decreasing marginal value. is this correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not correct. He writes something like- Avoid calling for all your chips on close gambles at/near the big money, (ie. final table). Applies regardless of ability. Earlier in the tournament, you can avoid calling for all your chips on close gambles if you are better than the field, but you may still choose to take them. If you are not better than the field, take all close gambles early on.

Close gamble = 50/50 getting even money pot odds, or 2-1 dog getting 2-1 pot odds etc, not 50/50 getting 2-1 pot odds.

[yeltzen]

Um... it is true that he says chips have a decreasing value, but that's not why he says not to take close gambles. You don't take close gambles in a tournament because, if you have like a 54-46 edge on someone and go broke, you're done and you won't be playing that situation enough times for the edge to take effect, as you would in a cash game where you can rebuy.

The example he gives for chips decreasing in value is like what happened with Raymer this year. He had like $10 million in chips going into the final table. At the start of the tournament, someone would probably have bought his $10,000 in chips for face value if they thought they had a good shot. However, no one would buy his chips at the final table for face value because the top prize was only $5 million. So, the more chips you accumulate, the less percentage someone would pay you for them since the amount you would win, on average, would be less than the face value of your chips.