Well? ($25 stars turbo)

[gisb0rne]

[ QUOTE ]
You're so busy looking at your numbers that you don't see the big picture. The numbers have nothing to do with this. In certain cases, you can and should take a -EV gamble if a) You have a lot of chips sitting in your stack that are useless since they have no "double-up" value, so they're basically there just for your comfort level, and b) winning the gamble will put you in a very favorable situation -in this particular case winning the tourney- while losing will leave you no worse off than you were before.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I've already pointed out, "winning the gamble" does not dramatically change the innevitable outcome like you seem to imply. You are highly likely to win the tournament even if you fold. In fact, your chance of winning the tournament might be higher if you fold. So gambling in this situation does gains you nothing. It is a purely EV decision.

Edit: I read the Gigabet thread linked. It doesn't apply here. For it to apply your gain/loss has to have some kind of effect on the future decisions you make. If you win this hand...there are no more decisions. Thus it's a purely +/- EV question. In addition, his theory might not even be correct and there certainly wasn't any consensus on it's precise meaning.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
You're so busy looking at your numbers that you don't see the big picture. The numbers have nothing to do with this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nonsense.

[ QUOTE ]
In certain cases, you can and should take a -EV gamble

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean -EChip. This is both -EChip and -EV.

I love it when people think they are obligated to make idiotic calls just because they have a lot of chips.

[ QUOTE ]
So tell me, how is this not a call?

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you understand why you should not make -EChip calls as the big stack heads up? This is similar.

[ QUOTE ]
If you grasp what Gigabet is saying, it will vastly improve your game if you think that was a fold.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand it much better than you if you think it applies here.