Re: Response to Sklansky\'s article \"Chips Changing Value in Tournament
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Snyder hit a home run it appears.

cheers
Boon

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I the only one that can see my post? (Or think straight?)

--Nate

[/ QUOTE ]

Nate,

You know how it is. Once someone offers a retort everyone is like "ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww-ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh. What could possibly be said to counter that BRILLIANT speech!" Then, the other side offers a retort, and the same thing happens!

Re: Response to Sklansky\'s article \"Chips Changing Value in Tournament
 

Testimonial:
Read Snyder's book. Improved my game.

Disclaimer: I have read many other books. They have also improved my game.

Conclusion: Books ae good.

Re: Response to Sklansky\'s article \"Chips Changing Value in Tournament
 

My initial response to this is posted in the Magazine forum.

When I have more time I'll add to it.

Re: Response to Sklansky\'s article \"Chips Changing Value in Tournament
 

[ QUOTE ]
Snyder hit a home run it appears.

cheers
Boon

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, it was just a long drive that died at the end.

And he promissed so much, and we waited so long.

Damn Yankees.

Re: Response to Sklansky\'s article \"Chips Changing Value in Tournament
 

[ QUOTE ]


Am I the only one that can see my post? (Or think straight?)
--Nate

[/ QUOTE ]

I see it, but I just don't understand it. My wife is trying to dumb it down for me. She called it a pedantic rant, but I don't know that that means either.

Re: Response to Sklansky\'s article \"Chips Changing Value in Tournaments\"
 

A lot to think about.

I am certainly going to buy your book now.

Re: Response to Sklansky\'s article \"Chips Changing Value in Tournaments\"
 

Hi Binions:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
In response to Mason's article in Poker Essays, I would certainly rather have 4 x initial stack at the first break 25% of the time and bust 75% vs. 100% having only my initial stack at the first break.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, this appears in my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics not Poker Essays. It was given just as an example of how percentage payback math works, and not as strategy advice.

I've only read a small portion of the Snyder article but I did read this section. Here's my response.

Snyder wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
In considering Malmuth’s example, try to compare it with a real tournament situation. I do not know of any real-world tournament in which players start with only $100 in chips,

[/ QUOTE ]

This stuf was originally written in 1987. At that time there were many small buy-in tournaments in Las Vegas. By memory, there was a $4 buy-in at the Hacienda, a $6 buy-in at the Dessert Inn, and I occasionally played in a $10 buy-in at the Las Vegas Hilton. I don't remeber the starting chips and blinds at these events, but it was very small.

[ QUOTE ]
In considering Malmuth’s example, try to compare it with a real tournament situation. I do not know of any real-world tournament in which players start with only $100 in chips, so for a real-world example, I’ll use the daily $60 tournament held at the Flamingo in Las Vegas, where players start with $1000 in chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
To keep as close to Malmuth’s example as possible, I’ll imagine two players who each start with $1000 in chips: Player A, who always has exactly $1000 at the end of the first hour, and Player B, who loses his $1000 three out of four times, but increases his chip stack to $4000 one out of four times. Within the structure of this real-world tournament, where will these players stand after that first hour?

In the Flamingo tournament, blinds start at $25/$50 and double every 20 minutes. So, at the end of the first hour, the blinds enter their fourth level, which is $200/$400. Now, what do I think of the chances of a player who always has $1000 at this blind level versus the chances of a player who one-fourth of the time has $4000 at this blind level?

[/ QUOTE ]

We agree that in certain spots the value of the chips in a small stack will actually go down. One of these occurs when:

1. The big blind is coming up.
2. You have a very small stack relative to the blinds and antes. And
3. The big blind is a large percentage of your stack.

What happens here is that you will be forced to play a hand that you normally would not play since it is still a much better hand than what you expect to get in the big blind.

Here's an example. Suppose the big blind is $600 and you have $1,000 left, are under the gun, and are dealt the Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. Clearly playing here, while correct, probably has negative expectation. But folding and then playing a random hand in the big blind will probably have even more negative expectation. Notice that this is the same as having the value of your chips reduced.

In my example (from GTOT) I used $100 because that's a number that is easy for most people to relate too. I just have easily could have used a much larger number. But for my point to be valid, there is an implicit assumption that $100 in tournament chips will be enough to play a reasonable strategy. If it's not because of the rising blind and antes, then my comments don't apply. I think most people would know this.

Also, (and this material appears on page 211 of the current [sixth] edition of GTOT, not 204 as Snyder gives -- he's probably looking at an older edition) the last sentence of the first paragraph states:

[ QUOTE ]
Consequently, A’s approach of following survival tactics is clearly superior.

[/ QUOTE ]

Snyder has been seizing on this to claim that I advocate a very tight conservative strategy. If some of you want to look at some of the other threads, you'll see that we have been down this path before and that my definition of survival tactics is very different from what Snyder claims it is.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Response to Sklansky\'s article \"Chips Changing Value in Tournaments\"
 

I'm not going to wade through a long article when only a few dozen people are paying attention to it and I know that my words in the 2+2 magazine article is correct. It's sort of like wading through a complex dice system where its tough finding the flaw, but simple logical principles tell you there must be one.

If Arnold Snyder is saying that highly skilled players increase their EV by a greater or equal percentage than their increase in stack size, in other words that chips don't decrease in value per chip as your stack goes up he is simply wrong. Except for small stack sizes. Or (and this is important) if you don't know how to play well with moderate stacks.

In the case of head up by the way, chips decrease in value no matter how small your stack is and no matter what the prize structure. As long as you are the better player with all stack sizes. This is so obvious that if he said otherwise he is automatically a complete incompetant. I feel like saying "do you see why" but I'll resist the urge and instead propose you think of a match where the short stack is one seventh of the big stack. So he has to double up three times. And each double up is greater than 50% (which it has to be since the other plyer is essentially playing the same number of chips as you). To start you are better than 12.5%. I'll let you finish this.

Of course the reason why any of this matters is related to decisions about going all in with even, or tiny positive EVs. A correct play with small stacks and a correct play with moderate stacks unless you are clearly better than your opponents and the stakes aren't soon rising. The best players in the bigger tournaments should thus usually avoid those gambles.

While I won't study Snyder's article, I will answer any specifically formulated questions regarding a specific point that 2+2ers may have.

Re: Response to Sklansky\'s article \"Chips Changing Value in Tournament
 

This is going to be like the Mason Vs FBI thread.

In the end Snyder will Challenge David to a Freezout.

Laughter ensues.

Re: Response to Sklansky\'s article \"Chips Changing Value in Tournament
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think players that adhere to Snyder's strategy, and 2+2ers should play in Trout like tournaments on Stars which would prove once and for all.....absolutely nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of excellent tournament players from 2+2 play very much the strategy that Snyder advocates.