Response to Sklansky's article "Chips Changing Value in Tournaments"

[mornelth]

[ QUOTE ]
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?



[/ QUOTE ]

If I have a chance - I'd rather NOT be in a situation where I have 1 bullet and a bad guy charging on me since there's always a possibility of a misfire. I'd rather have a TON of bullets to be able to take multiple shots around the corner (or whatever). If I get lucky - I'll shoot the guy before he gets close, if not - I'll save the last bullet...

In that sense having a LOT of bullets has value.

Ok, getting away from the bullets - as I stated elsewhere, and you yourself did - there are a LOT of excellent tournament pros these days that are much more aligned with Snyder's tournament strategy. Therefore there MUST BE something valueable in ideas presented both in Snyder's articles and the book.

I think it would be to the benefit of all readers to try and emotionally detach themselves from PESONALITIES involved and actually evaluate for themselves the ideas presented and decide how/if those ideas should affect their tournament strategy. I fully subscribe to the idea of Chip Utility Value and I do a lot of my thinking of tournament situations and moves and such in terms of CUV. Actually, anyone who ever said or thought something like "Fold, you still got a playable stack" is doing the same thing without CONCIOUSLY recognizing the fact that they are considering CUV of the situation rather than just cEV.

FWIW - I do believe that Snyders articles have more emphasis then necessary on DISPROVING any or all ideas expressed or held by MM and DS alike.