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

Sklansky's Chip Value Theory: Good Math, Bad Logic

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

OMG how much longer will this go on for? For anyone that's interested or hasn't been keeping up:-
More Snyder, More Response

Upcoming Article Will Clear Up Snyder Silliness

The aforementioned Article: Chips changing value in tornaments

There is also:-
The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder... ,
Snyder's Recommendation To Call A Raise W/Any Two On The Button ,
Snyder's Misconception about Sklansky's Add-on Advice ,
Snyder Response ,
Poker Tournament Formula Revisited

And that's probably not all of it

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

If one of them would just change their stance (S&M or AS), this would clear up quickly.

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

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

[ QUOTE ]
If one of them would just change their stance (S&M or AS), this would clear up quickly.

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

If Bush or Kim Jung Il would just change their stance, this would clear up quickly.

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

Excellent article, lots to think about.

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

Mr. Snyder --

Your article constantly confuses errors that arise from the premises of an argument and errors that arise from the logic of the argument. None of the "logical errors" you point out are actually logical errors. Your bullet analogy involves obvious hand-waving over the issue of marginal vs. absolute value of a bullet -- of course you'd rather have more bullets, but is the bullet that lets you make a peripheral assault *marginally* more valuable than the last bullet you have in your gun with the bad guy bearing down on you?

I could go on, but I think the point is clear. Most of your rhetoric relies on equating theoretical chip-utility considerations and practical tight-or-loose-play situations. (More explicitly: I'd bet a ton of money that neither Sklansky nor Malmuth would look at any of the new breed of excellent, loose, aggressive tournament players and say "that guy's play is flawed because loose play is incorrect because function F defines chip utility in this tournament.")

The haughty tone of your article is doubly grating because your self-assuredness is so misplaced.

--Nate

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

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent article, lots to think about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

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.

That's because tournaments are about chip accumulation due to the prize structure.

Greenstein in Ace on the River and Lindgren in Making the Final Table articulate similar arguments. They would rather cash less often than the nit if it means they make the final 3 more often due to building huge stacks every once in awhile.

The cool thing is that you can build big stacks much more often than 25% of the time in live events solely because most players play too tightly early on.

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

Snyder hit a home run it appears.

cheers
Boon

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

[ 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

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

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.

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.

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

[ QUOTE ]
but is the bullet that lets you make a peripheral assault *marginally* more valuable than the last bullet you have in your gun with the bad guy bearing down on you?



[/ QUOTE ]

If I have a chance - I'd rather NOT be in a situation where I have 1 bullet and a bad guy charging on me since there's always a possibility of a misfire. I'd rather have a TON of bullets to be able to take multiple shots around the corner (or whatever). If I get lucky - I'll shoot the guy before he gets close, if not - I'll save the last bullet...

In that sense having a LOT of bullets has value.

Ok, getting away from the bullets - as I stated elsewhere, and you yourself did - there are a LOT of excellent tournament pros these days that are much more aligned with Snyder's tournament strategy. Therefore there MUST BE something valueable in ideas presented both in Snyder's articles and the book.

I think it would be to the benefit of all readers to try and emotionally detach themselves from PESONALITIES involved and actually evaluate for themselves the ideas presented and decide how/if those ideas should affect their tournament strategy. I fully subscribe to the idea of Chip Utility Value and I do a lot of my thinking of tournament situations and moves and such in terms of CUV. Actually, anyone who ever said or thought something like "Fold, you still got a playable stack" is doing the same thing without CONCIOUSLY recognizing the fact that they are considering CUV of the situation rather than just cEV.

FWIW - I do believe that Snyders articles have more emphasis then necessary on DISPROVING any or all ideas expressed or held by MM and DS alike.

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

But, if you want to prove people wrong who think mathematically, you have to provide them with the math that will show them that they are wrong. Thus far, Snyder has not provided that to Mason or David. If he wishes to disprove their theories (which some people disagree with since Mason and David didn't start with a tournament mentality, but a cash game mentality, and obviously those are two separate and different games), he will have to show how their math is wrong. Other than that, he's just p'ing in the wind.

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

[ QUOTE ]
But, if you want to prove people wrong who think mathematically, you have to provide them with the math that will show them that they are wrong. Thus far, Snyder has not provided that to Mason or David. If he wishes to disprove their theories (which some people disagree with since Mason and David didn't start with a tournament mentality, but a cash game mentality, and obviously those are two separate and different games), he will have to show how their math is wrong. Other than that, he's just p'ing in the wind.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I get from the article is that Snyder thinks that the MATH is right - the PREMISES upon which the math is based are WRONG, or at least not applicable to real-world tournaments of today.

How do I explain this.

If I have 10 apples and I give you 4 of them, I'll have 6 left. However, since I do not like you (for the purposes of the example) - I'm not going to give you any apples, so at the end of the day you go hungry, even though the math is perfectly correct.

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

[ QUOTE ]
But, if you want to prove people wrong who think mathematically, you have to provide them with the math that will show them that they are wrong. Thus far, Snyder has not provided that to Mason or David. If he wishes to disprove their theories (which some people disagree with since Mason and David didn't start with a tournament mentality, but a cash game mentality, and obviously those are two separate and different games), he will have to show how their math is wrong. Other than that, he's just p'ing in the wind.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Snyder's goal is for DS and MM to come out and say, "you're right, we're wrong" then I doubt that's going to happen under any conditions, with math or without.

I'm not a mathmetician, however my day job (that I'm ignoring right now [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ) is in software development. Mathmatical proofs, testing, and attempting to consider all possible scenarios is my normal mode. However I was struck by this statement near the beginning of Snyder's article:

[ QUOTE ]
Mathematicians want to put numbers on everything. As a professional gambler, I understand the desire to figure out things like odds, advantages, and probabilities. But just because we may want to come up with these numbers doesn’t mean we should find some way to force them when there is no practical and accurate way to generate them.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO modeling all the relevant factors in a poker tournament would be akin to building a weather prediction model (remembering to factor in the butterfly that causes the tornado that's always mentioned in chaos theory discussions). The considerations that go beyond the current hand or even the current street on the current hand are real, but tough to put an accurate number on their impact.

For an example of a concept that is tough to put a number on read the "Hammer of Future Bets" chapter of NLHT&P. In the example you think you might have the best hand on the turn (top pair, king kicker) however your opponent could possibly have a hand that you're way behind and unlikely to catch up (a straight or set are both possible). The chance that to get to showdown you'll have to call both this bet and a larger river bet make this a difficult situation. If your opponent's turn bet put him all in this would be an easier decision. This "hammer" is obviously an example of the utility value of chips that Snyder discusses. I assume that David believes this hammer has value since it is discussed in a book he co-authored. But how do you put a number on the value of your opponent's hammer (or the value of having the hammer if you're the opponent)?

Al

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely true and I'd say Fossilman is a prime example for it. Anyways, arguing with David Sklansky about poker, math or logic is not something I would like to do for a living. You simply gotta know when you are outmatched.

The only compromise I see here would be to acknowldege that Snyder's style of play is specifically designed to exploit the 2+2 style of play. This doesn't mean that it's a correct way to play by itself. If everyone would play like that it couldn't work, because they would push each other all-in with random hands. It's only correct if your opponents stick to the gap concept and let you get away stealing more than your fair share of pots. Reminds me of some sort of prisoneer's dilemma where one guy is constantly cheating the other guy and the other guy let's him always get away with it, because he sticks to certain principles.

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

[ QUOTE ]
The only compromise I see here would be to acknowldege that Snyder's style of play is specifically designed to exploit the 2+2 style of play.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's designed to exploit tight play. Mason has said numerous times that 2+2 doesn't recommend tight play so that ain't gonna happen.

[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't mean that it's a correct way to play by itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any style that maximizes your expectaton against the mix of players you're playing against is correct. Any style that doesn't isn't correct (or at least isn't most correct). No style is the "correct way to play by itself" under all conditions. As with lots of poker decisions the optimal style is always situational and therefore the answer as to the optimal style to play is "it depends."

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

To me this seems like the right strategy for the wrong reasons. The reason that a big stack is valuable is because you can waste a few chips and it won’t affect your equity. If we assume that as our stack gets bigger, each chip becomes less valuable, our equity will look like this as a function of chips.
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8002/snyder1zh3.jpg
If we accept Snyder’s view, that each chip becomes more valuable as our stack gets bigger, our equity will look like this.
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/9199/snyder2cd9.jpg
If that were true, Snyder should be advocating careful, cautious play with a big stack since each chip is so precious that we shouldn’t be throwing them around at stacks who don’t value their chips as much. If a small stack doesn’t value their chips as much (since each chip is worth less in a small stack) they should be eager to play against the big stack. Just doesn’t make sense to me. The reason a big stack can be a bully and push everyone else around is because of the small value of chips to the big stack. He can spew a few chips and he won’t slide down the equity curve that much. If Snyder were correct then a big stack losing 100 chips would be a bigger loss to that stack than a small stack losing 100 chips. What?!?

Naturally you don’t have a smooth equity curve at any case when you get down to just a few blinds, but there has to be some relation that holds true for bigger stacks. Look back a Snyder’s curve that is continuously sloping up. Where does it stop? Your stack can’t be worth more than 1st place prize. But think about it. Snyder says that chips having more value in a bigger stack is true even if everyone is equal skill. That means that at the start of the tournament everyone has an equity equal to an equal share of the prize pool. And the slope of the equity curve at the starting point must be 1:1. If the equity curve actually slopes up, like Snyder says, then that means the slope must always be >1 with a larger stack. That means your chips will equal the value of the first place prize before you have all this chips!

Tysen

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

Neither is correct, IMO.

here's my version :

http://home.comcast.net/~tabib49/chipvalue.JPG

When you are SEVERELY shortstacked your chips have very little value.

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.

Later in the graph (when you have a LOT of chips) - you will eventually reach the point where ADDITIONAL chips have little value BY THEMSELVES, they only add value to you because you can afford to lose a coinflip with a smaller stack without significantly impacting your chances of winning or you can slow down and wait if the cards / conditions do not cooperate.

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

[ QUOTE ]
here's my version ... <graph>


When you are SEVERELY shortstacked your chips have very little value.

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 ]

As a believer in Snyder's contentions this graph is almost exactly what I've envisioned. Although he hasn't made it clear in his articles it isn't possible for the value of chips to increase indefinitely since the total valuation of all chips, regardless of how this valuation is derived, can't exceed the amount remaining in the prize pool. The added utility of additional chips past a certain point is marginal, however this point is fairly high in comparison with other stack sizes. At a minimum, for those who agree with mornelth's graph, I wouldn't expect the chip value increase to slow down significantly until you're at least the chip leader at your table (possibly chip leader of the tournament).

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

[ QUOTE ]
Mathematicians want to put numbers on everything. As a professional gambler, I understand the desire to figure out things like odds, advantages, and probabilities. But just because we may want to come up with these numbers doesn’t mean we should find some way to force them when there is no practical and accurate way to generate them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Al:

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 ]

This is from the essay titled "Non-Self-Weighting Strategies." It shows why mathematical thinking is wrong and why a different type of statistical thinking is correct.

Best wishes,
Mason

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?