RKuczek,
It appears we agree in Accumulation tournaments max bet each hand until a goal is achieved is the best strategy. You stated "If you have some math you can do a better job of identifying reasonable goals".
Can you expand on your "math for a better job identifying a reasonable goal" theory other than the Laughlin example of all in the final hand, you've left us with a philosophical yet unanswered equation. Please explain your math (formula) to achieve a reasonable $ goal in accumulation tournaments that differs with Wong.
The Laughlin example was just pointing out that in the specific case where there was a max bet, but, you could go all in on the last hand, your best chance of reaching the target wasn't to bet until you got to the target, but, bet until you got to 1/2 the target, then minimum bet and go for the double up on the last hand. Better odds of winning one hand (the last) then a series of hands.
Go to any basic stat book and look at the formula for calculating the standard deviation, then look at Wong's formula for calculating accumulation targets. Pretty obvious that Wong is trying to come up with a formula, based on standard deviation, that can be converted to a target, and applied across many formats and situations, i.e. badly bastardized. That's where Wong's formula can go very off. In Example, in the Tropicana-Laughlin tournaments, you combined your totals in two rounds, but, you also had the option of doing a rebuy round, and then you would use the best two out of three rounds. This is the kind of situation where Wong can skew way off. Likewise, trying to come up with a simple equation that would deal with no max bet, max bets, last hand all-ins, single round totals, two round totals, best two of three round totals, etc. without alteration, pretty much guarantees inaccuracy in every situation.
If you want a formula - simply go to any basic statistics book and find the formula for calculating standard deviation, and work from there. That assumes you have some knowledge of probability and statistics, and feel comfortable doing such an analysis. What you need to get at is the number of hands won that would be an 50% chance of being at the final table. You could also use the Chang Bioscience probability calculator, readily available on line. Rough example: using the Chang Bioscience probability calculator: Say, 125 players, one accumulation round, 7 at the final table, 25 hands. 7/125 is 0.056, winning 15 hands or more out of 25 is a 0.0724 probability, winning 16 or more a 0.031 probability. So the top 7 players should win at least 15.5 hands, meaning they will win 6 hands more than they will lose, so a reasonable guess is that the target for reaching the final table (50% chance) would be the starting bankroll plus 6 max bets. So, if starting bankroll is $2,500, and max bet is $1,000, target is $8,500, to get a 50% chance at reaching the final table. This approach can be adapted to other formats, such as the one used at the Tropicana-Laughlin, but the reasoning and calculations start getting more complex. Obviously you can adapt this approach to provide a higher percentage of probability to reach the final table. Doing some simple calculations, using normal probabilities, real standard deviation, etc. will give a much more accurate target than Wong's formula, but takes a little more work; if you have odd formats, rules, etc. then you need to be enough of a mathematician to adapt and handle a more complex analysis. But you will get a pretty accurate target for the specific tournament you are analyzing. Better than Wong's formula gives you.
If you can't work with the math, then go with Wong, but give yourself a big margin for error.
