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.