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

[ QUOTE ]
As you get more and more chips their value increases (and along the steepest portions of the curve - it increases MORE than just the straight-up dollar value). As you go upwards through Harrington's zones and you add more and more options to what you can do wit your stack - the value of your stack grows.

[/ QUOTE ]

That still implies that a big (but not huge) stack will suffer more by losing 100 chips than a small stack losing 100 chips. That's clearly wrong.

Tysen

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

[ QUOTE ]
This statement of Snyder's is very inaccurate and he knows this. First off, the type of theory that all of gambling comes under is statistical. Again, going back to my Gambling Theory book, here's a quote from page 12:

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, and this is important, all successful gamblers are statisticians, not mathematicians.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

From dictionary.com:

[ QUOTE ]
mathematics

the systematic treatment of magnitude, relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities expressed symbolically.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
statistics

the science that deals with the collection, classification, analysis, and interpretation of numerical facts or data, and that, by use of mathematical theories of probability, imposes order and regularity on aggregates of more or less disparate elements.

[/ QUOTE ]

An important distinction, yes, because the word "statistics" (and it's variants) are more precise than "mathmatics." Less precise, I agree. Inaccurate, I'm not so sure. Unless you're saying that statistics are not a branch of mathmatics.

Al

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As you get more and more chips their value increases (and along the steepest portions of the curve - it increases MORE than just the straight-up dollar value). As you go upwards through Harrington's zones and you add more and more options to what you can do wit your stack - the value of your stack grows.

[/ QUOTE ]

That still implies that a big (but not huge) stack will suffer more by losing 100 chips than a small stack losing 100 chips. That's clearly wrong.

Tysen

[/ QUOTE ]

Where on this graph do you envision a big (but not huge) stack? It's NOT on the steepest (or even steep) part of the curve.

The steepest part of the curve (in my mind) is somewhere between M=4 and M=20.

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

Hi Al:

You need to read Gambling Theory and Other Topics, especially the essays on "Non-Self Weighting" strategies to get a better understanding of exactly what I mean. This is partly because when unsophisticated people in gambling use the word math, they are really thinking more in terms of simple numbers than its true definition.

Also, these essays were originally published as magazine articles in 1983, and I was the first one in the gambling analysis field to draw publicly draw this distinction.

Best wishes,
Mason

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

[ QUOTE ]
That still implies that a big (but not huge) stack will suffer more by losing 100 chips than a small stack losing 100 chips. That's clearly wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends. To really say we'd need more information about the current situation. Stack sizes and blind sizes for example.

If the blinds are 400/800 with no ante and the short stack is going to be in the big blind on the next hand then he has to win (or at least split) the next two hands to survive regardless of whether he enters the blinds with 100 chips or 200 chips. If he survives then he'll have to go all in on this orbit or be forced all-in when he hits the big blind. I don't like his chances of survival in either case. Those 100 chips are virtually worthless. At some point on the low end of the scale losing the 100 chips makes no difference. In the middle of the scale losing 100 chips matters, even if very little.

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

"The essence of mathematics is not to make simple things complicated, but to make complicated things simple." ~S. Gudder

"To most outsiders, modern mathematics is unknown territory. Its borders are protected by dense thickets of technical terms; its landscapes are a mass of indecipherable equations and incomprehensible concepts. Few realize that the world of modern mathematics is rich with vivid images and provocative ideas." ~Ivars Peterson

Very pretty words, indeed, and I'm still not sure of what lies at the heart of the debate.

Are we debating the value of the early coin flip?

I've read all the books involved, and I must say the extended articles back and forth quickly bore me. I will say the best books I've read for MTT's are the Harrington on Hold 'Ems and Snyder's book. Sklansky's books are good, but feel a bit general and dated to me. I realise how important they are, and don't wish to dis them at all.
Perphaps I'm taking for granted the foundation Sklansky's books provide. Maybe, Snyder's style of writing clicked for me. I can't put my finger on it, but I found his book very helpful, and almost immediately so. He doesn't provide a lot neat examples of hands like Harrington does. Snyder explains his strategy, in a style I found easy to understand, and my play improved.

If he's confused or mis-applied basic theories then why did his book help me?
Is that the essence of the right advice/wrong reason argument?

Perhaps, I just don't appreciate the beauty of equations as much as I could/should. I'm really grateful that Snyder and Sklansky do, AND that they take the time and effort to try to translate for barbarians like myself.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Al:

You need to read Gambling Theory and Other Topics, especially the essays on "Non-Self Weighting" strategies to get a better understanding of exactly what I mean...
Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

I read that. The message to me was 'minimize the number of decisions you make'.

Therefore, are you saying the value of a big stack is the ability to play tighter?

But then Harrington says a big stack should take on a short stack if the short stack is 1/10th of the big stack. So there are times when a big stack can play loose.

So is the value of a big or short stack defined as "it depends"?...

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

No. Nice try however.

On page 223 of GTOT it states:

[ QUOTE ]
This is the one area of gambling where self weighting strategies are actually superior to non-self weighting strategies, and for this reason, I do not like tournament play.

[/ QUOTE ]

MM

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi mornelth:

I'm going to address this a little more because this is the heart of the matter.

First off, here's a link to my review of Snyder's book that appeared in our September magazine. (It is the third book reviewed.)

Notice that it says the following:

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly this means that the way we would advocate playing tournaments would be similar to what Snyder advocates. But if you read his stuff, he claims the opposite.

Here's the problem. I also wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
But there is also bad news. I do not agree with the premise of the book which has to do with tournament speed, that is how fast the blinds (and antes where appropriate) are increased.

[/ QUOTE ]

and

[ QUOTE ]
Another problem area is that Snyder doesn’t seem to realize that in poker tournaments chips change value, that is the more chips you have the less each chip is worth due to the percentage payback nature of tournament prizes.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, addressing this second quote a little more closely, in Snyder's book he analyzes the tournaments as if they are winner take all. He doesn't even realize, in this section of the book, that the tournaments are not winner take all.

When I pointed this out, we have seen this very negative reaction from Snyder. Basically, he has a pretty good book (that I recommend since any book that I give an 8 or better to automatically gets my recommendation) that is over 90 percent accurate. He could easily correct the flaws on his website with a two page article.

Instead, we have been reading what I consider to be at best confused, and yes I'm being polite. Instead of saying something like:

Yes I analyzed the tournaments as if they are winner take all, but as Mason Malmuth points out in his book GTOT the effect of the chips changing value is weak until the later stages of a tournament, so my analyses does apply for most of the tournament with a few obvious adjustments towards the end

we get one bizarre article after another where he tries to prove things that don't make sense, and where he states over and over that the advice which has come out of Two Plus Two on how to play tournaments is much different than what it is.

Also, here's a little of what I wrote in GTOT on page 223 concerning tournament speed:

[ QUOTE ]
What tournament speed does do is restrict the effects of skill on tournament results. This is because, as discussed in Parts Two and Three of this book, the standard deviation is inversely proportional to the square root of the sample size. That is, in tournaments -- especially "fast action" tournaments -- the skill difference between players is minimized.

[/ QUOTE ]

and

[ QUOTE ]
Another point of confusion is that the "fast action" tournaments very often have a proportional higher total ante in relation to the initial bet than the "slow action" tournaments do. This means that correct poker strategy now requires looser play (since there is more to win in each pot).

[/ QUOTE ]

Best wishes,
Mason

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

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this situation, let's suppose the big blind is the only caller and you win, giving you 2300 chips. Can you afford to fold many hands you get on your next big blind?

Then, by playing here, you are basically saying that you must win both the Q9 hand and the random BB hand in order to stay alive, which is much more unlikely a result than simply winning the random BB hand.

Granted, you will have many more chips by winning both, and I guess you can also fold some of your worst BB hands here for a raise. Is that advantage enough to overcome the negative advantage of having to win both hands?