The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[jackaaron]

Seriously? Have you read this? I'm still laughing at some of the things said in this book.

I'm not going to trash this book (any more), but SO many things in it are so far from conventional 2+2 wisdom that I was just wondering if anyone read it, and had opinions.

Rock, paper, scissors anyone?

[Grumbo]

Is this book even out yet? Amaazon has a paperback version comingo ut on Aug. 1st. Has there been a hardback version released? Doesn't look too interersting given that it's geared towards small buy-in tournaments.

[jackaaron]

Yeah, I read quite a bit yesterday at Barnes & Nobles.

Any book for low limits I would be interested in as I don't play 215.00 tournaments, and above.

Still, the advice is just so different than norm. I was hoping someone caught some of it. He's really big on feeling that Hold 'Em is a complex version of Rock, Paper, Scissors. Rock = chips. Paper = Cards. Scissors = Position.

So, he's saying:
Chips beat Position
Cards beat Chips
Position beats Cards

My thought is...oftentimes you have two of those three against your opponents, or they have two of those three against you. If I'm the CL on the button, it's folded around to me, and you're a less than average stack in the BB, and I have AA, then I suppose I have all 3. Still, you CAN fold to my raise. And, when he's talking about position beating cards, he's also talking about being able to minimize your loses better in position as opposed to OOP I suppose.

[Grumbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I read quite a bit yesterday at Barnes & Nobles.

Any book for low limits I would be interested in as I don't play 215.00 tournaments, and above.

Still, the advice is just so different than norm. I was hoping someone caught some of it. He's really big on feeling that Hold 'Em is a complex version of Rock, Paper, Scissors. Rock = chips. Paper = Cards. Scissors = Position.

So, he's saying:
Chips beat Position
Cards beat Chips
Position beats Cards

My thought is...oftentimes you have two of those three against your opponents, or they have two of those three against you. If I'm the CL on the button, it's folded around to me, and you're a less than average stack in the BB, and I have AA, then I suppose I have all 3. Still, you CAN fold to my raise. And, when he's talking about position beating cards, he's also talking about being able to minimize your loses better in position as opposed to OOP I suppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's his explanation for chips beating position? Is this for preflop or postflop play? It seems like this would apply in limited situations where you are considering bluffs after the flop.

[jackaaron]

At this point, I'm unsure why. As I said, I was reading through it at B&N, and although some points held my interest, the Rock Paper Scissors part pretty much made me put the book back on the shelf.

I might try to give the book a second chance late this week. I try not to totally discount anyone's point of view when it comes to poker discussion (key words: try not to).

[chukakhan]

I am not shocked that the book(Poker Tournament Formula) would get a biased review at twoplustwo forum. Most of the posters here are naturally alligned with Twoplustwo products. I just hope that most of you do not take the time to study this book. Do not waste your time. Most of you are obvisouly smarter and much to wise for this material.

I have worn the covers off almost every book Twoplustwo has published. I have already read Miller/Sklansky's NLHEM several times. I have to tape the pages to the binding on all of Harrington's books. I am sure most of you are in the same boat poker wise.

I will just tell you that personally I have to put The Poker Tournament Formula up there with Harrington 1 & 2. Most of the concepts that are addressed in the book is breaking new ground. But I will say that the book expands on Harrington 2. Most of the material deals with topics that all "Fast" tournament players must deal with- and for the first time we can quanitfy these topics. It is building a foundation for a new type of fast tournament player to hone his craft. Most of the poker tournament books are geared for longer tournaments, blinds greater 1 hr etc. These faster tournaments are not condusive for the previous books on tournaments. The only previous things I can think of is the first part of Harrington 1, that talks about small online tournaments and sit-n-go's- and Yellow-Orange-Red zone in Harrington 2.

Having played hundreds of these "fast" tournaments, I was blown away by this book. Every problem the book tackles will be very familar to anyone who plays at pokerstars-partypoker etc.. I just pray that most of you are to "full" of yourselfs or to arrogant to apply this material.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Jack:

[ QUOTE ]
Chips beat Position


[/ QUOTE ]

It's more like lack of chips beat position. This is easy to see. When you're all-in and get called, position doesn't matter anymore.

Best wishes,
Mason

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
It's more like lack of chips beat position. This is easy to see. When you're all-in and get called, position doesn't matter anymore.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Mason,

In the example that you give, you are totally correct, but it's also a 2 edged sword. Even with lack of chips, you still have to pay attention to your position when pushing. It seems like an odd way to formulate the question in general.

I liked Arnold's book Blackbelt in blackjack a lot, and I found his book on internet bonus whoring to be very worthwhile also.

Best regards,
Jordan

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
It's more like lack of chips beat position. This is easy to see. When you're all-in and get called, position doesn't matter anymore.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you actually believe some of the nonsense you write, or is it just too important to act like you know more than some other author?

It's not "lack of chips", it's being all in, regardless of how many chips you started with. And it doesn't "beat" position, it renders it moot. Do you see why?

[Mason Malmuth]

There's a proverb in the bible: "The love of money is the root of all evil." Mark Twain said that he thought it was "The lack of money."

MM