joelshitshow said:

https://www.tournamentpokeredge.com/forum/mtt-poker-strategy/36bb-blind-battle-with-77-all-4-options-seem-reasonable/#p61987 seems to address your question. If I understand Andrew correctly, he's saying people worry too much about variance and pass on +cEV situations just because they increase variance. Andrew, do I have that right?

Personally I have to take what I perceive to be higher variance, low +cEV opportunities because I'm just not good enough to pass on all of them (ICM situations notwithstanding). If I were a top pro, it'd make more sense to pass on the marginal spots. When I think about it, it makes sense because behaviorally we are risk-averse. Therefore I should be calling in marginal spots because it feels like I shouldn't. The key is identifying whether it really is +cEV.

Very well said. Basically you are more likely to overcompensate than to undercompensate for risk aversion, so better, especially early in your career when you aren't likely to have much if any edge on the field anyway, to focus on other aspects of play. Too many people use “wait for a better spot” as a crutch to avoid doing any tough analysis.