[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]
Now don't you think it's a little silly for Snyder to state:

[ QUOTE ]
We have only more recently realized that Harrington's strategies are weak in slow tournaments as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

because if this statement was accurate, how was it possible for Dan to have achieved his tournament results?

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhhh ... because the game has changed since Dan achieved his tourney results? Or, how about, in practice Dan doesn't rotely follow the strategies in his books ? etc.

But what's really important is that it's foolish to think that rotely following textbook strategies for winning tournies will get you anywhere.

Most of the concepts presented in books on poker tournies are concepts that you don't need a book to learn. The concepts intuitively become obvious to any intelligent, creative, dedicated player who studies the game as he plays, and has played a hundred tournies or so (easy on the inet).

Harrington invented "M"? No, he did not, he just named it. M has been around and been understood since the very first poker tournies. M was a very clear concept to me very early in my tourney playing career, perhaps as soon as the first time I was playing at 10th level blinds. Most other "textbook concepts" are similar.

It's really silly for Synder to say that Harrington's strategies are losing strategies, but it's just as silly to say that Harrington's strategies are winning strategies.

And don't forget that the landscape of poker tournies is changing all the time.

Snyder's book should be sub-titled "A Tournament Poker Book for the Blackjack Crowd". Maybe a formulaic approach can work in blackjack (if they let you play) but it can't work in poker.