Re: First Post -- Anyone?
[ QUOTE ]
No one has explained what this wonderful formula is about. I have not read it but this is the point I have the most doubt on. I noticed Mason has not commented on it? Can someone with more than three posts comment on this formula?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well the formula mentioned in the title is the complete strategy Snyder outlines in the book. I assume you're wondering specifically about the edge a large stack has over a small stack.
In an earlier post Snyder said, "Whenever an opponent gets a chip lead over you in a tournament, he has a mathematical advantage over you. If your opponent plays with equal skill to you, his chip lead is, essentially, insurmountable, unless you are lucky enough to be dealt superior cards. So I’m not saying you will never win in this situation—there is a lot of flux in gambling, and even when you’re a dog, and facing an opponent of equal skill, you will sometimes get lucky and beat him." Although this might be discussed in a different context elsewhere in the book Snyder specifically talks about this in Chapter 10 (on rebuys). I'm not going to duplicate his argument here (if you want to see the whole thing then buy the book). This particular contention (that whoever has a bigger stack at any particular point in the tournament has a better chance of winning the tournament) is nothing new. At least one of the 2+2 books (Tournament Poker for Advanced Players?) also has a section that explains why taking the optional add-on in a rebuy is always correct unless you're so short stacked relative to the rest of the field that you're giving up. The reason for this boils down to the bigger your stack the better your chances.
|