Negreanu's tournament theory regarding big pots.

[Pensive Gerbil]

In an article in the current Card Player magazine, I was surprised that Negreanu advocates sometimes CALLING with a draw in a big pot with slightly inadequate effective odds. If I recall, he said this is a significant difference between tournament and ring game play; top tournament players know it is correct to chase big pots with inadequate odds when it only costs a small portion of their stack.

It seems to me that top tournament players (such as Negreanu) should be less willing to chase pots with marginal or inadequate odds than less skilled players. I am also skeptical about Negreanu's suggestion that you should be more willing to chase pots with inadequate odds when it will just cost a small portion of your stack. Might not it be better (or less bad) for a desperately short-stacked player (who is not close to making the money) to chase a big pot despite slightly inadequate odds?

-PG

[Ryner]

Wasn't that article on limit hold-em, though? Seems to me chasing and going for draws can occasionally be much more do-able in limit than no limit, even when the odds are against you.

[Pensive Gerbil]

Although there are more opportunities to chase draws with marginal or only slightly inadequate odds in limit hold'em, the opportunity arises in no limit as well. Opponents often underbet pots, and implied odds tend to be greater in no limit. Nevertheless, I do not think this is relevant to the theoretical issues in my post.

-PG

[AtlBrvs4Life]

Do you have a link to the article?

[uw_madtown]

Given that the more chips you have, the less each chip is actually worth (theoretically), I think Negreanu's idea makes sense. I'll usually employ a similar strategy in 2-table SNGs at Party, actually. If I have an adequate stack and the right situation arises where I'm getting not-so-hot odds to chase a flush, I'll usually be willing to take a shot at chasing it with the idea being that winning this big pot when the flush comes it will solidify me as the chip-leader -- and if I don't make the flush, I'll still have enough chips to have a chance to out-maneuver my opponents.

Might just be bad strategy on my part.

- UW

[Pensive Gerbil]

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_maga...php?a_id=14222

[Pensive Gerbil]

[ QUOTE ]
Given that the more chips you have, the less each chip is actually worth (theoretically), I think Negreanu's idea makes sense...
- UW

[/ QUOTE ]

It is also true that the theoretical value of each chip you would be risking is greater than the value of each chip you might win.

-PG

[Vannek]

The move is -CEV but is +$EV at certain
points of the tournament

[gergery]

This only makes sense to do if
1) you are getting close to not quite the correct odds to call, and
2) the extra value you get from being able to use a bigstack effectively in tournament play more than offsets the loss in EV from calling when you dont have the odds

and maybe toss in alittle psychological benefit from putting o's on tilt if they see what you played

[Pensive Gerbil]

[ QUOTE ]
The move is -CEV but is +$EV at certain
points of the tournament

[/ QUOTE ]

At which points in a tournament do you think this is true? Why?