[BigAlK]

I think Smbruin is mostly right. I constantly find myself arguing for (or as an apologist for) the PTF camp on 2+2 and in a similiar role (arguing that Harrington/2+2 are being unfairly maligned) on the PTF forums. FWIW, here is the way I see it.

Snyder's PTF is specifically designed for fast tournaments and he'll be the first to tell you that as the speed of the tournaments you play are slower you need to be more selective in the use of some of his more aggressive techniques. There are several reasons for this. One is that slower tournaments (those with what Snyder calls a high skill level) give opponents more time to get a handle on what you're up to. If you aren't mixing up your play you'll get trapped by observant players. In a fast tournament most of your opponents will be broke before they figure you out. This doesn't mean that Snyder is of no use in slow tournaments. It does mean that you need to figure out what you've learned from Snyder and how it applies to slower tournaments on your own. The "skill" in fast tournaments is knowing how to play an extremely aggressive style to take advantage of the generally tight play of other players as well as avoiding trouble when your opponent has a hand he's willing to go broke with.

In HOH1, Harrington lays a foundation for a tight, conservative style. At the start of the book he discusses the various styles (IIRC he calls them conservative, aggressive, and super aggressive) and discusses the pros and cons of each. He makes it clear that he believes the conservative style is best for the new player who is just learning because it gives him a solid foundation and makes postflop play easier. However Harrington makes it clear that there are reasons to mix things up. He even goes so far as to say that your largest pots are likely to be won when you're playing a style that isn't your norm.

In HOH2 Harrington's short stack play ramps up the aggression. He says that when you become short every player has to play the aggressive style. I agree that Harrington alludes to adjusting for soon to be rising blinds implying that this should be a consideration in your strategy. However the tournaments that Harrington generally plays and what he appears to base his strategy on are slower tournaments. In spite of using online tournaments in some of his examples the tournament speed rarely enters into the discussion. Mason says that in a discussion with Harrington he said that tournament speed shouldn't impact strategy. (This of course appears to contridict some of what is published in the HOH series.)

I see Snyder as the benchmark for fast tournaments and Harrington as the same for slow tournaments. There is something to be learned from both regardless of where the tournaments you play fall on the speed continuium. The waters on this issue are continually muddied due to people from both camps painting the issues as black and white. They aren't.