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

[Shandrax]

Snyder calling Sklansky's logic flawed and Sklansky calling Snyder the most overrated gambling authority ever to walk on earth shows makes me feel that some feelings got hurt along the line.

About the overall theoretical argument, I think despite all the fuzz about it, it doesn't matter. Even if someone may be right with his conclusions within the boundaries his model, the model may not be good enough to emulate the real situation.

Negreanu, Juanda, Lindgren and our forum-buddy Raymer have all shown and continue to show that tournament poker is all about having a big stack. If that's not in line with a certain chip model, you may have adjust your model, because you will hardly be able to adjust reality the way you need it to be to win that argument.