[stevepa]

[ QUOTE ]
Steve,

I hesitate to try because you are, if not smarter than me, definitely a better poker player. I don't always agree 100% with OP, although I do on most things. He may also stop by and tell you my explanation is wrong. Now that I've got the disclaimers out of the way I'll give it a shot. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate the effort [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
What is a +cEV play? Anything that on average will win more chips than we lose, right? OP doesn't suggest we make -cEV plays since, by definition, continually doing that guarantees you'll lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yes and no...there are some spots which some people will argue are -cEV but +$EV. I'm still on the fence about whether I think those exist but was unsure if that's why the author was arguing or not.

[ QUOTE ]
What he suggests is that you look for your +cEV plays that aren't always based purely on your cards. Is a blind steal +cEV? How about calling a pre-flop raise (with positon) from a player you've identified as weak tight with the intention of taking away the pot on the turn if he shows any weakness? I'm sure you've done both of these at some point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everybody does these things and I'm sure if you asked Harrington he'd agree as well. But whether those are profitable plays in a given hand is based on: a) your cards (which always have at least a minor importance) b) effective stacks c) your opponents tendencies d) respective images, players to act and their stacks/tendencies, flow of the game, etc. etc. but NOT how soon the blinds go up. (I'll come back to this)

[ QUOTE ]
If Harrington really believes you should always take all +cEV edges then why would he suggest when you get short stacked that you have to loosen up your starting requirements. Does the hand that isn't good enough with a bigger stack suddenly become profitable due to you having less chips?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it does. Hand values change substantially as stack sizes change. A9o is complete trash when you have 50bb's but a pretty solid hand when you have 5. I do think Harrington tends to err on the tight side, but if I remember correctly his approach is to take anything he perceives to be +EV.

[ QUOTE ]
We make adjustments due to a quicker structure because we are (or should consider ourself to be) desperate quicker than using Harrington's zone system would indicate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean you're pushing hands earlier? Playing more hands? If so, why aren't you playing these hands in the slower structure? Are you purposely passing up +cEV plays in the slow structure to "wait for a better spot"? If so, why? I feel like what you're actually arguing is that Harrington plays too tight. Maybe that's true but how tight you should play is based so much on table dynamics that it's not really a fair criticism.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
P.S. I strongly disagree with the idea that tournament structure has a substantial impact on strategy in all but the most extreme cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly I don't see how anyone can believe this. Possibly if you read Snyder's book instead of basing your opinion on a quick browse in the bookstore you'd feel differently. Then again, maybe not.

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't really have a firm opinion on Snyder's book because like you said, I haven't really read it. What I did read had some clearly wrong ideas (e.g. calling any two on the button to a raise) but maybe he addresses those later. Anyways, that's not really the point of this thread.

Here is a very quick explanation of why I don't believe structure matters in tournaments. Like I said before, whether or not playing a hand is profitable depends on a lot of factors, including current blinds, chips stacks, images/abilities of others and yourself, etc. But the fact that the blinds are going to go up in 5 minutes instead of 10 certainly doesn't change the cEV of a given play. So the only arguments in favour of structure mattering is that in fast structures you have to take -EV spots or in slow structures you should pass up +EV spots. I think there are spots where you should take -cEV spots if the blinds are about to go up if you'll lose your FE upon the blind increase. But these spots happen in all tournaments, regardless of structure; they just happen more often in fast structured ones. Passing +EV spots has been discussed many times, I think there are very few times it's correct. But regardless, your goal in every hand is still to maximize EV (where cEV is generally a very good approximation of $EV). How soon the blinds go up very rarely if ever impacts EV and thus structure of tournaments is irrelevant to proper strategies.

Steve