The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[Shandrax]

After reading Mason's statement I get the impression that he thinks that tournaments of all sorts and speeds are sufficiently covered in Harrington II.

I also get the feeling that this thread has a slightly paranoic undertone [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[JackCase]

[ QUOTE ]


I also get the feeling that this thread has a slightly paranoic undertone [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I get the feeling that this thread has a highly religious overtone. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I also get the feeling that this thread has a slightly paranoic undertone [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I get the feeling that this thread has a highly religious overtone. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I get the feeling that this thread has a highly financial undertone [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[Mason Malmuth]

You seem to like to twist the facts.

[ QUOTE ]
his first posts about the book, where he called the book a confused version of Harrington's M, Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say that.

[ QUOTE ]
I read the 1985 McEvoy book you cited as the first book to address the effects of structure on optimal strategy. McEvoy wrote less than a paragraph on this issue

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true. He has whole chapters on slow actio, medium-action, and fast action tournaments, as well as table in the back.

[ QUOTE ]
I wrote in my post at BJF: It is the only serious mathematically based discussion in the literature of optimal rebuy strategy.


Mason says:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not true. Most of this was originally written up almost 20 years ago.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



My reply: Again, if this is so, please provide your source.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to tell you. Normally I would, but after accusing me of misleading our readers you're just going to have to find it yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
I said in my post at BJF: It is the first and only book in the poker tournament literature to discuss the mathematical basis for bankroll requirements for tournaments, and show how these requirements are altered by field size.

Mason says:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not true either.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




My response: This is another of Mason's assertions with no proof. Are you saying that others have provided a mathematical basis for tournament bankroll requirements, with adjustments for field size? If so, please cite your source.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again I'm not going to tell you. Find it yourself.

MM

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi ptmusic:

[ QUOTE ]
I get the feeling that this thread has a highly financial undertone

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't. Remember, I gave Kill Phil a rating of 10 which is the highest I give. I'm also very sure that The Poker Tournament Formula will become a recommended read by me. That means it gets at least an 8 (out of 10).

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Men:

You may be right. Radar certainly is acting like he has a stake in this book. If it makes him feel better, this discussion here should help the sales of The Poker Tournament Formula and the fact that I have stated several times that this book will help many players who read it do better in tournaments will also help. What Radar will learn is that these forums are the number one driver of poker book sales whether it is a book published by us or by someone else.

best wishes,
Mason

[DJSirMatthew]

Being a newbie and not having read Snyders' book, I might take a wrong turn here, if so, just correct me. But after reading this topic and having read HOH I & II, I think Mason and Arnold are right in their own way. Hope I can explain myself clearly enough.

Basically M indicates your strategy. As a skilled player you prefer to be in the Green Zone since this makes you a fully functional poker player. Harrington states that when you are in the Green Zony you can make all moves available.
The thing Harrington doesn't mention is the frequency you should apply those moves, and here is where Snyder steps in in my humble opinion. By stating that in fast tournaments you have less opportunities (less hands before you drop zones) to make moves, you should make them more often (hence play more aggressive). So I think Arnold statement can adjust players to make more moves while in the green zone so that can stay in the green zone or have an advantage when the tournament enters the crap shoot part.

What I trying to say is that waiting for premium hands isn't the only aspect of playing within the green zone, and people put too much emphasis on that aspect of green zone play. (So I think that what Arnold does with his book is what Ed Miller did when he posted that people were folding too much in limit games.) Arnold basically clarifies that making moves, playing aggressive is a part of the green zone play and that in fas tournaments they must be a dominant part of your green zone play. (like Harrington says: in green zone you can play smallball as longball, in lower zones you can't play smallball anymore. Smallball IS making moves too!)


But nonetheless M stays the driving force. The thing people seem to forget when making a playing decision is not only to consider their current M, but what their future M will be within 1,5 or 10 hands. And this is where tournament speed comes into play. Say your M is 25 now but the next hand it will be 12, and the hand after that 7 so going from Green to Yellow to Orange. Will you make a move now that you might have a chance to be still in the green zone next hands or will you forego that chance with the certainty you'll be in the Yellow Zone and then in the Orange?

A relating concept to this is that in fast tournaments, once you get into the Yellow Zone, it doesn't take many hands to get into the Orange and further in the Red Zone. So maybe in less than 10 hands you're down to the Red Zone and obliged to go all-in with 7/2o... I personally prefer to make the move while still in the green zone and hoping to stay there...


Hope I got my ideas across well, whether I'm right or wrong.

[Ace-Ex]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I will say that you have to take into account that you will encounter many more players willing to call with anything early in the tournament. This makes bluff moves difficult to execute, which is why I recommend sticking with better hands early on and opening up your game later. I think there is a lot of frustration with not being able to use your skill to get ahead of some of the "luckier" players in the early rounds. This makes it seem like a more LAG strategy would work better early, but Harrington clearly tells you this is incorrect in HOH I. I think a good adjustment in shallow stack, quick tourneys is to move all-in with your good hands rather than trying to nickel and dime people. You're just as likely to get called. See NLHT&P for more on this. Note: I mean going in post-flop. It's important to see the flop in the early part of a tourney, other than premium pairs.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi DJSirMatthew:

[ QUOTE ]
But nonetheless M stays the driving force. The thing people seem to forget when making a playing decision is not only to consider their current M, but what their future M will be within 1,5 or 10 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
And this is where tournament speed comes into play.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Suppose your M will be cut in half in three hands. I agree that you may make an adjustment based on that. But what does that have to do with tournament speed. Three hands is three hands.

[ QUOTE ]
Say your M is 25 now but the next hand it will be 12, and the hand after that 7 so going from Green to Yellow to Orange.

[/ QUOTE ]

Harrington II does address this. If your M is 25 and you know that on the next hand it goes to 12 it might be right to make an adjustment. And if your M is 12 and on the next hand it goes to 12 it may be right to make another adjustment. But this can happen in a very slow tournament as well.

[ QUOTE ]
A relating concept to this is that in fast tournaments, once you get into the Yellow Zone, it doesn't take many hands to get into the Orange and further in the Red Zone. So maybe in less than 10 hands you're down to the Red Zone and obliged to go all-in with 7/2o... I personally prefer to make the move while still in the green zone and hoping to stay there...


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that in the red zone it might be correct to move in with a seven-deuce. But it can't be correct to make this same play in the green zone.

A lot of this confusion occurs because, as Harrington II points out, many players are playing tight when they should be somewhat desperate. Here's an example. Suppose the chip leader at the final table has an M of 7. He shouldn't be playing like he's in the Green Zone just because he's the chip leader. He might adjust his play due to tournament payouts, but that's a different issue.

Best wishes,
mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Ace-Ex:

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the whole thread, but I will say that you have to take into account that you will encounter many more players willing to call with anything early in the tournament. This makes bluff moves difficult to execute, which is why I recommend sticking with better hands early on and opening up your game later.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be true but it is a function of the players. Suppose you just happen to be at a starting table and you notice that no one will call a bet. Then you would play the opposite.

I do agree that in general players tighten up as their stacks get smaller relative to the cost per round. In fact, it's hard to play a tournament and not do this yourself. When you notice that this is happening, you have an inflection point and you should adjust your play accordingly.

best wishes,
Mason