OK, this is going to seem like an odd question, but it’s something I have been wondering about lately. First, the set-up…
You are in a NL Holdem tourney, entry was 20K, 150 people entered, and we are in the first hand with you in the big blind with 3,000 chips.
UTG moves allin, and it’s folded around to you. You look down and see AA. You have played thousands of tournies with this guy. He always limps aces from that position, moves in with kings, bets 6BB with queens, and 5 BBs with any other AQ+. In other words, you KNOW he has kings.
Conventional wisdom is to call. You are a 4-1 favorite and are risking 3,000 to win 3,000. It seems lke a no-brainer, and in a ring game, it would be.
However, you could also see it that you are risking your buyin (20k in “real” chips) to win 3,000 in tournament chips. The 20% of the time you will lose will end any chance of getting your money back, while the 3,000 tournament chips won’t guarantee you anything. Yes, doubling up on the first hand is a good thing, and does offer some benefit, but how much benefit does it offer at this stage of the tournament?
Again, conventional wisdom says that you no longer own the buy-in… it’s now part of the prize pool and shouldn’t really enter into your decisions.
If you were in this situation 5 times, you will, on average, lose 20,000 “real” chips once while winning 3,000 tournament chips 4 times, for a total of 12,000.
I’m calling there every time, but is this a mistake?