[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair and reasonable comments bustedromo, except for this one. Not that the statement is entirely wrong, but that you appear to be judging a book by it's cover (or more specifically it's title). Have you read the book? I find the use of the word formula in the title a bit misleading. The PTF is much less a formula than "Kill Phil" for example (even factoring the alternative or advanced strategies KP includes). The PTF is no more formulaic than HOH.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I haven't read it. It's too time-consuming reading all these books only to find out after each 20 pages it's just another concept that was already intuitively obvious to me.

Yes, the 1st (and even the 2nd) derivative of M matter -- I don't see what Malmuth is arguing about. But that's just another concept that's always been intuitively obvious to me.

Poker tournies, backgammon, chess, etc. are games which are all about thinking ahead, anticipating how the future is likely to be in its most prominent variations.

I think an awful lot of serious tourney poker players have a much better intuitive grasp on these concepts than they might think when they open up a huge book and think "oh dear, it's much more difficult than I ever imagined".