[BigAlK]

[ 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 ]

[ 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 ]

Snyder is definitely saying that Harrington is too tight. I agree (and believe Snyder does too) with the things I quote above. His theories are largely based on playing against a large number of people playing the strategies that Harrington proposes. This apparently worked well for him in the low buy-in B&M tournaments he plays in Vegas. The opponents and table dynamics he found in these games allowed his techniques to work because he felt those playing a Harrington strategy could be pushed off a hand easier or more often. I've found that what works best for me is usually somewhere between Harrington and Snyder for the games I play depending on all the factors you list. For example the calling with any two on the button suggestion is something I rarely use. When I do it's not normally any two and is dependent on who else is in the pot.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll throw out one potential example. Let's say blinds are 200/400 and your stack is 7200 (18BBs or an M of 12). Assume you're in utg+1 and utg folds. You have 77.

If I interpret Harrington correctly he would advise mucking here. In the section on yellow zone play he discusses playing 44 from utg+1 and concludes that you can't play it in this situation. Although 77 is slightly stronger I believe the logic he outlines would still apply.

On the other hand Snyder's advice in this situation would be to go all-in. He says, "when you're this short on chips you must take risks because the risk of tournament death is greater if you don't play than if you do." In other words with blinds rising rapidly the odds of you getting a better hand in a better situation to pick up a few chips may not come.

Obviously Harrington's approach is neutral cEV. I guess whether Snyder's is + or - cEV depends on how you view your opponents calling ranges and the probability of one of those yet to act having one of these hands. I see Shermn27 just made a post with what at first glance looks like about the same example so I won't attempt to do the math here.