The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems like some people reason like there is some kind off special intrinsic value of beeing in the green zone. All else beeing equal that may of course be the case but all else is rarely equal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bjorn,

There is an intrinsic value of being in the green zone. Read the quotes from Harrington about being a complete player with all moves available to you. To say there is no intrinsic advantage is like saying that a carpenter with all his tools, hammer, saw, and screwdriver doesn’t have an advantage in accomplishing his job than a carpenter with only a hammer. That just doesn’t make sense.

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have missunderstood my point.

Of course a carpenter would be better off with hammer, saw, and screwdriver than just a hammer. My point is that is that you have to weigh the risks of beeing reduced to just a hammer vs the risks of not even having that.

I.e. it's not that there is not value in trying to stay in the green zone but that it has to be weigthed against the risk of busting out early (or beeing reduced to a very small stack).

Plus as someone pointed out, being in the green zone doesn't do you much good toolwise if due to tournament speed everyone else is in the red zone. (Obviously it is still better in $EV because you have more chips.) To continue the carpenter comparison neither a saw nor a screwdriver is much use if the job is all hammering nails.

/Bjorn

[/ QUOTE ]
Just an opinion...

I don't think you weigh staying in the green zone vs. busting out. At least, I don't think that is what Snyder is hoping you do, nor do I think Mason would either. If you bust out taking your edges, so be it.

From both Mason and Snyder's perspective, you make +EV plays, and if you're in the green zone, great, play like it.

However, they differ in how you "play like it." For example, in Snyders perspective you're playing the green zone like Mason would suggest you play a zone or two smaller.

[Shaggy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. They have to show that Arnold's math is wrong in Chapter 10 of The Poker Tournament Formula, where he shows the mathematical basis of the edge a big chip stack has over a small chip stack in a tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one has explained what this wonderful formula is about. I have not read it but this is the point I have the most doubt on. I noticed Mason has not commented on it? Can someone with more than three posts comment on this formula?

[/ QUOTE ]

Get the book and make an educated response/rebuttal. You also shouldn't criticize some people just because they don't have a lot of posts. Clearly Radar_O'Reilly is not a troll.
-Shaggy

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
No one has explained what this wonderful formula is about. I have not read it but this is the point I have the most doubt on. I noticed Mason has not commented on it? Can someone with more than three posts comment on this formula?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the formula mentioned in the title is the complete strategy Snyder outlines in the book. I assume you're wondering specifically about the edge a large stack has over a small stack.

In an earlier post Snyder said, "Whenever an opponent gets a chip lead over you in a tournament, he has a mathematical advantage over you. If your opponent plays with equal skill to you, his chip lead is, essentially, insurmountable, unless you are lucky enough to be dealt superior cards. So I’m not saying you will never win in this situation—there is a lot of flux in gambling, and even when you’re a dog, and facing an opponent of equal skill, you will sometimes get lucky and beat him." Although this might be discussed in a different context elsewhere in the book Snyder specifically talks about this in Chapter 10 (on rebuys). I'm not going to duplicate his argument here (if you want to see the whole thing then buy the book). This particular contention (that whoever has a bigger stack at any particular point in the tournament has a better chance of winning the tournament) is nothing new. At least one of the 2+2 books (Tournament Poker for Advanced Players?) also has a section that explains why taking the optional add-on in a rebuy is always correct unless you're so short stacked relative to the rest of the field that you're giving up. The reason for this boils down to the bigger your stack the better your chances.

[Piers]

Yes I have ordered a copy.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Well the formula mentioned in the title is the complete strategy Snyder outlines in the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah! Thanks, I now understand what he is talking about.

I was rather hoping for some way of quantifying the effect playing in the green zone has over playing in other zones. Or in cash game terms, how does your hourly rate change as you change the blind size while keeping other stack sizes the same.

If you can do this, it would be possible to estimate what excesses if any are justified for a world class player early in a tournament in order to stay in the green zone.

However assuming this is true and allowing for some of Arnold’s phrasing, would not this be more important in a slow structure event?

The reason being that most of your opponents will be in the green zone in a slow event so being in the yellow zone is a ‘handicap’ against almost the whole field, while in a fast event most of your opponents will not be in the green zone so in the yellow zone you will only be ‘handicapped’ against a small percentage of the field.

[protoverus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fast tournaments you may not see a premium hand before you're blinded out or forced into an all-in with a less than premium hand due to having a low M.

[/ QUOTE ]

And therefore you adjust your strategy because your M is low. You don't adjust it because of tournament speed.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this (practically) a semantics issue? It seems like he's saying that your M is likely going to be low BECAUSE of the fast structure. Fast structure = low M quickly (unless it's premium cards day).

Do I misunderstand?

[Shandrax]

Because of this thread I ordered a copy (guess I am easy to catch...) and I have to say, that this is a very interesting and unique book. It displays a unique mix of theory, psychology and (most important of all) practical application. That's especially refreshing and motivating these days when everyone seems to be talking about long-ball tournament concepts based on all-in moves.

Can't help it, but in a way this book reminds me of the great old classic by Andy Fox "Play Poker, Quit Work and Sleep Till Noon" and I am very curious about Mason's review on it.

[Cactus Jack]

Because of the thread, I went by and bought a copy--autographed no less! (Thanks, Arnold.) It's definitely a worthwhile contribution, and as I'm not even 1/3 the way through, I'm withholding gushing. However, as pointed out in this thread, the book has a TON of information that makes the book well worth buying.

I only wish Cardoza used better paper. It's not much better than newsprint. Yuck. Their books deserve better treatment.

CJ

[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.

[Worldclass]

I have been playing for a while using similar strategies & I am not happy that this information is now so easy for everyone to obtain. The only downside for me, is when I am playing 4 or more Turneys online, I am forced to play much tighter.