[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
The whole valuation of chips matter is a non-issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be. It remains an issue because Snyder hanged his hat on it for the basis of his theory. He’s been proved wrong and refuses to admit this. So he’s the one keeping it an issue.

[ QUOTE ]
Optimal rebuy/add-on strategy

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to more a debate of what the debate is. Snyder vs. S&M or Snyder vs. Snyder’s Interpretation of S&M. Mason had to correct Snyder more than once about what he (Mason) recommends. There may be some genuine disagreements here, but I think they derive from the chips value issue.

[ QUOTE ]
Utility Value of Chips

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven’t read that post, nor Snyder’s book. I’ve only read Snyder’s articles. He’s clearly wrong when he claimed utility value in his heads-up equal skill example, which I proved. So you can imagine how confident I am about this theory in other situations. I’ve previously stated that I find this concept interesting and that it may have merit. But that’s a far cry from agreeing with it. I need some proof, which hasn’t been forthcoming. And here’s an example of something Snyder wrote in his third article, which troubles me. First he quoted Sklansky’s Magazine article:

[ QUOTE ]
Notice however that this proof assumes that the great player figures to double up before going broke. That is usually true. But there are exceptions. One rare one is the player who plays a lot better with a big stack. In other words he is not a favorite to double up until he has gotten a lot of chips (almost inconceivable for limit tournaments). This is sometimes the case for psychological reasons, either in his mind or his opponents. Or it might simply be that he is weak playing shorter stacks. Such a player would be well advised to gamble early in a tournament including even calling all-in bets. Meanwhile there is a more common situation where a good player is not favored to double up before going broke. I speak of those times where his stack is very short.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then he wrote the following regarding that:

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky’s Opinion of “Chip Utility” in Poker Tournaments
In the same 2+2 article, Sklansky does at least acknowledge that there may on rare occasions be a utility value to chips for some “rare” players. He says:

(above quote)

Truly skilled players may indeed be “rare,” but I find it amazing that Sklansky thinks that a player skilled enough to play “…a lot better with a big stack,” might be “weak playing shorter stacks.” Every truly skilled player is weaker with a short stack than with a big stack, because his skill options are so limited with fewer chips. The fact is there is never much skill involved in playing a short stack. Any player’s skill options on a short stack are limited to hand selection and an occasional kamikaze shot at the pot, which is why short stack strategies have been ably reduced to simple formulas in a number of books, including The Poker Tournament Formula.
It’s optimal big stack play that takes real skill, because you have so many options.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, Sklansky hasn’t acknowledged utility value to chips under any occasion. What he’s acknowledging is that chips may gain EV on rare occasions (when added to a stack). He then gives an example of a player whose skill is at a much higher level with a lot of chips than it is with fewer chips. Such a player might triple his EV when doubling his stack. Second, this type of player is rare, probably because most players who demonstrate a lot of skill with large stacks also have a lot of skill with smaller stacks. Third, that sudden increase in EV is due to the skill anomaly of a unique individual, not a universal utility value effecting everyone (although EV is EV, and it works the same no matter how you get it). And I suspect that any EV Snyder accounts for using his utility value theory would already be factored in by Sklansky if he were to cite a player’s skill level (which might be a average of all skills measured under various conditions).

Snyder chose to interpret Sklansky’s observation as an acknowledgement of Snyder’s utility value. Snyder then chose to interpret the “rare” meaning truly skilled players are rare. Skilled players may be rare, but Sklansky was stating something else. Finally, Snyder confuses “shorter stack” with “short stack.” Sklansky cited the player’s skill differential with “lots of chips’ and “shorter stacks.” Shorter stacks could mean average size stack, medium size stack, below average stack, and possibly even short stack. Snyder chose “short stack” so he could make his “never much skill in playing a short stack” observation, and then use that observation to, in effect, ridicule Sklansky for mentioning it. Even if Snyder’s observation is true, Sklansky was saying something else (Perhaps a player plays large stacks well but tries to play average stacks the same way, costing himself EV).

Does Snyder really have that much trouble understanding what Sklansky is saying? I have a hard time believing that. If I’m right, then Snyder is intentionally misleading his readers. If so, then why? That would be an integrity issue, in my opinion (what’s his motive?). If not, then a competence issue, as David suggested in an earlier post. In any event, it causes me, and I suspect others, to question the legitimacy of other things Snyder has written.

[ QUOTE ]
The Impact of Tournament Speed on Strategy

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason has addressed this already. And similar to the re-buy issue, there’s disagreement on what S&M, or in this case Harrington, recommend. My impression is that the two strategies are similar in Mason’s opinion, and that he had issues with how Snyder is arriving at his recommendations. I haven’t read Snyder’s book, and don’t have Harrington’s advice memorized, and cannot comment myself.