[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
However, he makes the important point throughout his posts and book that fast play to build up a chip lead is not essential in a slow tournament, while it IS essential in a fast tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Essential is a bit strong, and just seems the wrong adjective to me.

If you can play fast successfully yes you should, not because it is a fast tournament, but because your EV is higher playing that way. Alternately if you do not have the skills to play a fast strategy then it is clearly not essential for you to play a fast strategy that is beyond you.

Playing a fast strategy is not about the speed tournament it’s about whether you can do it or not.

Personally I think the most important skill for a fast tournament is correct red zone play, as most key decision will be made there. Either because you are in the red zone or your opponent is.

[ QUOTE ]
The point Piers misses is that, when you are short, you are no longer a fully functional poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not miss this. I just think that the point is being overemphasised.

Remember you can only use these skills when both your opponents are in the Green zone. A typical fast tournament might have the highest stack at the table with an M of 15 and most Ms under 7. You cannot use your supposed green zone skills if everyone else is in the Red zone.

[ QUOTE ]
. You may prefer to play in the orange zone or red zone, but if you do it's because your poker skills are limited

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely, most poker players’ skills are limited. A typical person playing a conservative strategy will not be able to use all the green zone skills available (almost by definition), so he gains far less by being in the green zone. And might well play better in the Red or Orange zone.

The important thing is to know your abilities and limitations, and make intelligent use of this understanding.

[ QUOTE ]
Mason and Piers keep reiterating an assertion that tournament speed has no effect on strategy choices. But the minute a conservative style is a viable option with one structure, and not a viable option with a different tournament structure, their assertion is wrong

Specifically, what Arnold is saying is that while you can use either conservative or fast strategy in a slow event, fast tournament structures require that you abandon conservative strategies in order to stay in the green zone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am saying that tournament speed has no effect on your strategy choice, on the assumptions that you always play the bets strategy of which you are capable.

If it is correct for you to play a fast strategy in a fast tournament then you should play one in a slow tournament. If you do not posses the skills to do this than you should stick to a conservative strategy in both types of tournaments. The tournament type has not changed your choice of strategy.

However there is a proviso.

IS ARNOLD SNYDER SUGGESTING YOU MAKE –EV DECSIONS IN ORDER TO STAY IN THE GREEN ZONE?

This seems to be a key point everyone is glossing over. If he is saying this and is correct, then he has a point.

You might play worse with a fast strategy than a conservative one, but the fast one is more likely to keep you in the green zone via increasing variance.

E.g. you have a play where a conservative strategy will move you always to the yellow zone, while a slightly worse EV play (in tournament equity ignoring player skill) will ether have you out the tournament or put you in the green zone. Is it ever correct to make the worse EV play?

I think the answer is yes, but the effect is so small that it can be ignored in practice. It seems to me that Arnaold is saying this effect is not negligible but one of the most important factors to be considered. Am I misunderstanding him here?

[ QUOTE ]
2. They have to show that Arnold's math is wrong in Chapter 10 of The Poker Tournament Formula, where he shows the mathematical basis of the edge a big chip stack has over a small chip stack in a tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arh! What is this? Ok I have no clue what this formula is about so can’t comment. Without establishing whether this formula is correct or nonsense I guess it is not possible to come to a conclusion. Is the formula correct?

However it does seem to me that Arnold is saying you should be making locally –EV decisions in order to increase your chance of staying in the green zone.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone has more chips than you they, have a bigger equity in the tournament than you. You can overtake him if you get sufficiently lucky, or he gets sufficiently unlucky, skill can be used to bias the luck factor slightly."

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is mathematically unsound reasoning. In the long run, two opponents of equal skill will have equal luck. Relying on luck to get you out of jams when someone has an edge over you is unsound professional gambling. It would be the equivalent of a card counter placing a big bet when he doesn't have the edge, and just hoping he wins this time. It is true that he will often win when he bets at a disadvantage, but he will not win often enough to make him a winner overall.

[/ QUOTE ]

My statement stands; what you say is true but irrelevant..

[ QUOTE ]
Piers admits to having a problem with knowing what to do with a big stack--essentially he is admitting he lacks a broad range of skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was giving an example from seven years ago when I had recently started playing, to illustrate how some people’s play will improve when moving from the green zone to the yellow and orange zone, rather than the other way around.

Saying its essential to play fast to stay in the green zone is silly, what is essential is to understand you own abilities and weaknesses and to play the best you can within those restrictions.