[EdmondDantes]

Is there a point where it’s optimal to stop playing to win?

A friend of mine was sweating me in the Titan $250k today. With 31 left, I was about 20th in chips with 14,000. With the blinds at 2000/4000/no ante, it was folded to me in the SB with A7o. I pushed on the BB (ActionJeff) who had me slightly covered about 2:1. He called with K3s, turned a K and I was out.

My friend asked me if I’d always do that in that situation and my initial reaction was “Of course.” since 1) I want to win, 2) the bigger money is higher (1st prize was $62,000), 3) I still have some folding equity, 4) I’m 60/40 vs. a random hand and 5) the incremental chips will improve my chances of winning.

As it turned out, there were a couple of stacks on other tables with <600 chips and there was a high likelihood I could have moved up in money (from $1200 to $1800) by simply folding. I’m far more interested in the 62 grand first prize than the incremental $600, and if the same situation presented itself, I’d take the same actions, but it got me thinking. What if my stack was so small that my chances of winning the tournament were almost non-existent?

For example, if I was sitting with 50 chips and picked up AA, but it was certain that another short stack would be out ahead of me and I’d pick up the incremental $600, should I accept that it’s not my tournament to win and just try to maximize the economic return on the time and money investment? Is there any point at which you turn your attention from winning to simply squeezing the most value out of the tournament you can?

Thanks in advance for the responses.

Not a quitter,

Edmond