Playing for *LIFE-CHANGING MONEY*---what is practical here?

This is a revised post/idea from earlier since I couldn't edit the OP. I've already posted this word-for-word in the earlier thread, but I really think this is a much better subject line that explains my question using a more extreme situation. If this second post is against the rules, I apologize and understand if it gets deleted.

Let me specify the type of situation I'm thinking of at a greater extreme. Say you final-table a big sunday guaranteed which you entered through a satellite. Also, for sake of elaboration, 3rd place is 25X your bankroll and 1st is 50X (its a ton more than you have ). Yet any final finish is still a huge boost obviously. You and villain are basically tied for first. Early on you get involved in a hand in which you were a big favorite on the flop but are absolutely certain villain outdrew you on the turn (can we just say the cards are face-up?), yet you have a decent redraw. Lets say he caught two-pair and pushes while you have a straight-flush redraw to the nuts or a better two pair. This makes you ~2-1 dog in the following example.
(HERO: AsKd
villain: AcQd
flop: Ah Ts 9s
turn: Qs )


The pot is laying you better than 2-1, say 2.5 or 3-1, maybe more. Over half your chips are in the pot leaving you pot-committed in most situations. However, if you fold you still have a decent M, say 2-3 and you strongly believe you are the best at the table.
If somehow you are absolutely sure about your read do you take your good, maybe great odds and call an all-in on the draw, or fold and battle back. Are you pot-committed here? What percentage hit to your stack makes you pot-committed. How much overlay makes it an easy call/ I understand this is a crazy example and not sure if its actually possible for these pot-odds to occur (maybe there's tons of dead money in the pot) but I hope this illustrates my idea a little better. I am not saying this idea is correct, I'm asking for opinions on what the most practical play is or do you through practicality out the window. Keep in mind you are competing for a HUGE pay relative to your bankroll or networth for that matter. Do we use non-poker logic in this situation?
ABSOLUTELY HYPOTHETICAL!!!

ps. if you think this is a donkey situation please understand it is completely thought up to match my conditions. The fundamental question is how much overlay do you need when playing your biggest game ever? Also, I'm trying to think of an example where you aren't drawing with all your chips, but still, I hope this explains the magnitude and theme of the situation I imagine. (I wish this was the OP)
Gonna catch mad criticism on this one..

[Masquerade]

If you're the best at the table then there will be many more such final tables in your career and there's no point getting hung up over this one. If you want to fold now then maybe you shouldn't have become pot-committed and becoming pot-committed without knowing exactly what you'll do in the rest of the hand given various scenarios doesn't seem like evidence of a great player. If you've got the odds just call. If you lose, you lose. So what?

[Dave D]

The prizemoney shouldn't really ever affect your thinking about decisions in the way you're talking about. That's just bad poker. This kind of question is all personal preferance, ie "am I willing to give up a shot for 1st in order to guarantee 3rd". But something liek that is really outside the poker world.

You should try to maximise your 'utility'. That is, maximise the pleasure you'll get from spending/having the prize money. The prize money aren't worth anything in themselves. Only the things you can do with the money are important.

Trying to maximise your dollar winnings is wrong since utility per dollar usually decreases the more you win.

So if the money is life-changing, you should probably try to limit your variance a bit and not push small edges. The trouble is that you'll then be at a disadvantage against the people at the table to who the money isn't life-changing.

[Dave D]

[ QUOTE ]
You should try to maximise your 'utility'. That is, maximise the pleasure you'll get from spending/having the prize money. The prize money aren't worth anything in themselves. Only the things you can do with the money are important.



[/ QUOTE ]

sure.

[ QUOTE ]


Trying to maximise your dollar winnings is wrong since utility per dollar usually decreases the more you win.


[/ QUOTE ]

Umm no? Just because the utility decreases and/or has decreasing marginal returns, doesn't mean it's useless? It's not negative to have more money, you're still getting more "good", so that doesn't mean you should try to get less of it just because every dollar is worth less. Only when the marginal return is 0 is it not worth getting more.


Incidently, I'd make the opposite argument. A dollar is really worth very little to me, I'd never play a tournament where the prize for 1st is a dollar, it just wouldn't be worth my time. If first is 10k however, that's worth my time. So I'd argue more money has increasing value, ie the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

[ QUOTE ]


So if the money is life-changing, you should probably try to limit your variance a bit and not push small edges. The trouble is that you'll then be at a disadvantage against the people at the table to who the money isn't life-changing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why you're not supposed to play outside your BR. But OP isn't really talking about a variance situation. He's talking about winning say 100k, when you have a BR of 5k, ie a HUGE payday. Variance would only matter if he was talking about a normal tournament inside his BR. Presumably the competition in this tournament is better than OP, b/c its outside his BR (there's fish at every level, but everyone knows the competition is harder at the 200+15 level than the 5r level), so he SHOULD be pushing small edges to make up for the skill differential. Ie if I know I'm in a coinflip situation to win a tourney against Doyle, I'll take it every time. there's no way he would want to though b/c he knows he can beat me with skill over time.

[beenben]

M of 2-3 is not decent it is death. you are bound to be called and you better pick up a pushable hand within one orbit. Therefore, I would call the push. (

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Trying to maximise your dollar winnings is wrong since utility per dollar usually decreases the more you win.


[/ QUOTE ]

Umm no? Just because the utility decreases and/or has decreasing marginal returns, doesn't mean it's useless? It's not negative to have more money, you're still getting more "good", so that doesn't mean you should try to get less of it just because every dollar is worth less. Only when the marginal return is 0 is it not worth getting more.


[/ QUOTE ]
Dollar-EV and Utility-EV will often guide you to the same decisions. I'm trying to say that if they conflict you should pick utility-EV.

[ QUOTE ]
Incidently, I'd make the opposite argument. A dollar is really worth very little to me, I'd never play a tournament where the prize for 1st is a dollar, it just wouldn't be worth my time. If first is 10k however, that's worth my time. So I'd argue more money has increasing value, ie the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.


[/ QUOTE ]

You should maximise utility/hour of course.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if the money is life-changing, you should probably try to limit your variance a bit and not push small edges. The trouble is that you'll then be at a disadvantage against the people at the table to who the money isn't life-changing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why you're not supposed to play outside your BR. But OP isn't really talking about a variance situation. He's talking about winning say 100k, when you have a BR of 5k, ie a HUGE payday. Variance would only matter if he was talking about a normal tournament inside his BR. Presumably the competition in this tournament is better than OP, b/c its outside his BR (there's fish at every level, but everyone knows the competition is harder at the 200+15 level than the 5r level), so he SHOULD be pushing small edges to make up for the skill differential. Ie if I know I'm in a coinflip situation to win a tourney against Doyle, I'll take it every time. there's no way he would want to though b/c he knows he can beat me with skill over time.

[/ QUOTE ]
As long as you're maximising your utility you shouldn't care that you're up against someone who's trying to maximise his utility from different criteria even when it leads to less (or - theoretically - more) dollars for you. So I should probably drop the 'trouble' part from my original posting. It's only a disadvantage dollar-wise. Not utility-wise. And utility is what matters.