Show Me The Money....

[Valiant23]

This post is inspired by the "AA on the Bubble" thread; http://www.punterslounge.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32368 The established thinking when playing MTT's is that it is better to go for first and bust out because the payout setup is so heavily weighted in favour of that first spot. Now thats fair enough and I understand that. I think this is wrong! You are on a betting forum. This forum talks about yield and ROI (Return On Investment). It preaches that the real money to be made in gambling is not with the 100 to 1 shots, or the 15,000 to 1 accumulators that make the newspapers but with simple single winning bets. When I joined PL I was a typical mug punter who tried on a weekly basis to hit a 100 to 1 shot with my football accumulators, and failed. I still am a mug punter, but a mug punter who appreciates that a weekly winning single turns over more profit than the once in a blue moon accy. The point of all this is to explain why PL is responsible for my 'making the money' approach. You see, when I buy-in to a tourney, I look at it as a bet placed. I see making the money in the same way as a winning single bet, and I see first place (in an MTT) as the winning accumulator. Now because I see ROI as the be-all and end-all my primary aim is to get ITM. I want a return on my investment first and foremost. Anything more is icing on the cake. STT's are my bread and butter game, but even so I still am more interested in my ROI than winning first. Say I pay for a $5+50 10 seat STT. In effect I am betting that I am better than 7 other players on that table. If I am correct I will recieve just under evens (1.81) on my stake. If I am better than 8 then I'll recieve nearly 2 to 1 (2.72) on my stake, and if I am the best on that table I'll receive just over 9 to 2 (4.54). So, if I try and go for first and fail every time, I'm a losing player and my bankroll will eventually dwindle to nothing, as would the person who only bets on 15,000 to 1 accy's. But if I go for the sure thing (certainly the case in STT's) and try to finish the event with more than I started with, then this has to be the same as the person who bets on the heavy favourite and wins little and often. That is why I go against the poker players mantra of only playing to win, at any cost. What does anyone else think? For what its worth, I'm not advocating limping to the money once you know (or think) you have enough of a stack to survive the bubble. If I have AA then I'm calling, even if its against the chip leader and I'm 2nd.

[jeffers]

Re: Show Me The Money.... Right - I see what you're saying Mr V, but...imo there's a fundamental life thing involved in this - it's about "settling" for the cash or going for the big one. If the odds are in your favour, and the options are - Go out with nothing, or, be chip leader (or right up there) - you have to take it. If I have a decent hand on the bubble and I'm put all in, I'll do it. That's because I'm slightly mental (insert Mr V comment here ;) ) and would rather go deep into the money than limp into it...but if your poer is about pure ROI (as it should be really) then limp limp limp into the money. But maybe by taking the risks near the bubble your RIO might be higher? Good thread btw :ok