The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
As to the second statement, I don't buy the idea that it might have just been a matter of saving money for a few years until the losers had enough to sit down at a NL game again.


[/ QUOTE ]

Missed my point on that a bit. You seemed to be putting all those old players in a vaccuum where there was no way they'd ever get money after they lost in the older games. Not to mention, once they left, the games went away and weren't offered.

[ QUOTE ]
But if limit were the popular game and NL had died out, then why didn't they show limit poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because N/L was the main tourney format.

[ QUOTE ]
The poker boom has lasted years.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's still lasting. It may have peaked, but it's still much, much bigger than it was before the boom. Which is exponentially bigger than it was back when N/L was played more often before.

[ QUOTE ]
Why have these players been playing for 5 years? How has their "bankroll" lasted that long?


[/ QUOTE ]

The population/player pool in general is quite a bit larger than it was back then, wouldn't you say? So it will take quite a bit longer. Also, capped buy in games will help prolong it.

[ QUOTE ]
I've never seen limit poker on TV and I've watched a lot of poker on TV. But 99% of the poker shown must not be limit Holdem.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then you missed a classic one with Lederer and Chip Jett. Yes, it is pretty much all N/L now. Most was inspired by WSOP.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(new)People started requesting it more

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, but why would they do that if they get their ass kicked in it to the point of going broke?


[/ QUOTE ]

Some who requested it aren't around. Some have deep pockets/better real jobs and haven't lost yet. Some have gone back to limit. It isn't instantaneous.

[ QUOTE ]
Yet the same players are still playing years later. How can that be?


[/ QUOTE ]

Many players aren't. Let's not forget them. There's also alot more new people to take their place when they leave. It hasn't run its course yet.

I do agree with your point that part of it is that the games do become less fun and more serious. However, many also don't like to lose chips as fast as they do/can in a N/L game in comparison. Many of the new players now just haven't realized that yet. Some old players will take a stab at it again the same way some take stabs at pit games. It's just that their old pit game is now back on the boards. A couple bad runs and people don't dig losing. They'll get tired of buying in for their normal and losing it even though they might win a few sessions. They'll buy in for less and less, not wanting to risk as much. People will get tired of playing with the small stacks because it just isn't that much money to play for. Then the guys holding the game together will likely just move on to where more money is to be made.

There's just more expendable income/interest in the new fad out there so the process might be greatly prolonged.

b

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Mason's comments and rating of the book would be akin to saying "Harrington is completely wrong about M and his premise is flawed. I give the book a high rating - 8/10 - recommended."


[/ QUOTE ]

Now now. I'm on the Snyder side of this debate and I disagree with this statement wholeheartedly. ...There is no reason that Harrington's theories and Snyder's theories have to be mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have completely misunderstood my point. My point is, in part, that Snyder's and Harrington's theories are not in conflict.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to have completely misunderstood my point. My point is, in part, that Snyder's and Harrington's theories are not in conflict

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to put this up again. It is from the book section from Snyder's website:

[ QUOTE ]
Harrington, Dan. Harrington on Hold ‘Em: Volume II, Strategic Play.

We have realized for some time that if you follow the strategies in Harrington's book in fast tournaments (tournaments with blind levels lasting less than an hour) you will be a losing player. We have only more recently realized that Harrington's strategies are weak in slow tournaments as well. Harrington's Vol. II has some value for the discussion of specific hands in specific circumstances. It is also of value for gaining an understanding of a common, and particularly exploitable, "by the book" type of player you will frequently encounter at the tournament tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it certainly seems as if Snyder himself is disagreeing with you. By the way, the Harrington books are very detailed works. They are not something quickly put together to take advantage of the vast name recognition his name has. So Dan and Bill Robertie do a thorough job of presenting Dan's strategies in poker tournaments. 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

[jeffnc]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, we're discussing the book, not his web site. His book implies nothing of the sort. If his web site says that, then it seems to me it's something he decided after the book was out. And I can't say if he's right or wrong about it.

However, you're being disengeuous with your question. You're simply backing up Harrington's results because he's a 2+2 author, and being hypocritical with previous statements of yours criticizing aggressive tournament players. You said basically they are just lucky with their success because tournament play is highly variant and their results could mean anything. The same might be said of Dan. Frankly I don't think it's true - I think his results and success are valid. But then I'm not the one who says someone with success with a different style just got lucky.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
So it certainly seems as if Snyder himself is disagreeing with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll repeat it again - this is a discussion of the strategy in the book. A quote from the book: "Harrington II - [one of 5 books you must read] One of the best books on tournament strategy in print by one of the world's top tournament players and creative thinkers, absolutely must reading if you intend to play major events."

Harrington I is also a recommended book.

If he's changed his mind, it doesn't have anything to do with our book discussion. And frankly if you were biased by any comments outside of his book when doing your book review, then your review is further flawed.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
You said basically they are just lucky with their success because tournament play is highly variant and their results could mean anything. The same might be said of Dan

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said any of this. But this is part of what I wrote in my review of Snyder's book:

[ QUOTE ]
The good news about his text is that it will definitely help many of its readers play better. That’s because it correctly outlines the aggressive style of poker that is needed for poker tournaments, especially those with small buy-ins. This alone would normally make The Poker Tournament Formula at least a 9 on my scale since there aren’t many books that will clearly improve the expectation for typical players.

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, for those interested,in Snyder's book he has a section of recommended reading. Harrington I appears under the heading of "Other Recommended Books: No-Limit Texas Hold 'em Tournaments" with no comment. But Harrington II appears under "Five Books You Must Read" and here's what Snyder says about it:

[ QUOTE ]
One of the best books on tournament strategy in print by one of the world's top tournament players and creative thinkers, absolutely must reading if you intend to play major events.

[/ QUOTE ]

MM

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You said basically they are just lucky with their success because tournament play is highly variant and their results could mean anything. The same might be said of Dan

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said any of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you did. I read it right here on 2+2. I can't find the link because the search on this forum is crap. Maybe someone else will remember the thread.

[jeffnc]

There are some interesting comments on Snyder's book (including a comment on one of Mason's books) on this blog
http://secretsoftheamateurs.blogspot...s_archive.html

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
There are some interesting comments on Snyder's book (including a comment on one of Mason's books) on this blog
http://secretsoftheamateurs.blogspot...s_archive.html

[/ QUOTE ]

This is shameful on your part. But I'm sure you're aware of that. Snyder wrote a couple of articles that claim the advice which David and I gave is much different from the actual advice that we give. Now I don't know this blogger, and if he only read what Snyder wrote he would think that our advice is really bad, so I'll give him a pass. But since you've been following these threads, you already know that what Snyder claims about our advice is totally false. Shame on you.

MM

[fraac]

No one cares what Snyder or 2+2 say about each other. Hi.