The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are some interesting comments on Snyder's book (including a comment on one of Mason's books) on this blog
http://secretsoftheamateurs.blogspot...s_archive.html

[/ QUOTE ]

This is shameful on your part. But I'm sure you're aware of that. Snyder wrote a couple of articles that claim the advice which David and I gave is much different from the actual advice that we give.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to his comments (both positive and negative) about the BOOK. What he has to say about Snyder's articles outside the book, I have no idea. As far as the spat between you and Snyder or any false representations he made of you or vice versa, I have no part. You could be right for all I know. This thread is for discussing the book.

[VK_Rick]

I've come back to this thread after a week or so and cannot believe this debate continues. In any event, with regard to the AQ example and whether you can fold a coin flip, leaving yourself with an M of 22 if you know the blinds double the next hand, I think increasing the M makes the example easier to understand.

Instead of assuming an M of 22 (soon to be 11) if you fold, assume your M will be 120 (soon to be 60) if you fold. Under these circumstances, it seems obvious that tournament speed must matter.

Using the example of blinds doubling every hand, folding leaves you with an M of 60 for one hand, and M of 30 for one hand, an M of 15 for one hand, and then an M of 7.5 -- a mere four hands after electing to fold the AQ. I cannot imagine being able to pass up a coin flip in this situation.

If, on the other hand, the levels are 120 minutes long, it doesn't much matter that your M will drop from 120 to 60 in the next hand, because you still have four hours of play in the green zone, and avoiding a coin flip for all of your chips may make perfect sense.

In the end, the difference is not the next blind increase that matters, but how quickly the next few increases will occur.

I don't expect this to settle the debate, but I think changing the hypothetical a bit at least makes the point more clear.

[silvershade]

[ QUOTE ]
I've come back to this thread after a week or so and cannot believe this debate continues. In any event, with regard to the AQ example and whether you can fold a coin flip, leaving yourself with an M of 22 if you know the blinds double the next hand, I think increasing the M makes the example easier to understand.

Instead of assuming an M of 22 (soon to be 11) if you fold, assume your M will be 120 (soon to be 60) if you fold. Under these circumstances, it seems obvious that tournament speed must matter.

Using the example of blinds doubling every hand, folding leaves you with an M of 60 for one hand, and M of 30 for one hand, an M of 15 for one hand, and then an M of 7.5 -- a mere four hands after electing to fold the AQ. I cannot imagine being able to pass up a coin flip in this situation.

If, on the other hand, the levels are 120 minutes long, it doesn't much matter that your M will drop from 120 to 60 in the next hand, because you still have four hours of play in the green zone, and avoiding a coin flip for all of your chips may make perfect sense.

In the end, the difference is not the next blind increase that matters, but how quickly the next few increases will occur.

I don't expect this to settle the debate, but I think changing the hypothetical a bit at least makes the point more clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

What he said.... Great post.

[Jan]

[ QUOTE ]

In the end, the difference is not the next blind increase that matters, but how quickly the next few increases will occur.



[/ QUOTE ]

[Red_Diamond]

Nope.

You're all wrong, and that's the end of that!

[dthf90210]

"Short, quick rounds such as those used in low-limit events, make for faster play and introduce a greater element of luck as you're forced to play more aggressively to say ahead of the quickly increasing blinds and antes. In the bigger events, you're given more chips to start, the levels are longer, and the increase in blinds and antes is more gradual so that you can get a lot more play. This combination lends itself to the skill factor playing a larger role in tournaments with longer and more gradual levels than is the case at the more hurried low-limit tournaments." Crash Course in Beating Texas Hold'em by Avery Cardoza, pp. 136-37.

[smbruin22]

i love HOH 1/2 and PTF. i don't think either has much worthwhile to say about the other's world. but they're both fantastic for what they're designed.. AMEN??... dan and arnold are both fantastic writers.

[dthf90210]

True dat. Both Harrington and Snyder produced a great, pragmatic product(s) and write well.

[smbruin22]

[ QUOTE ]
True dat. Both Harrington and Snyder produced a great, pragmatic product(s) and write well.

[/ QUOTE ]

i love harrington and i've been trying to come up with a descriptor. i love his stuff but i DON'T think it's this amazingly advanced book like some do.

but pragmatic is a fantastic description of harrington and snyder (dan H espeically)..... both fantastic authors!!

[stevematador]

I recently joined this forum and have read this entire thread over the past week, so forgive me for trying to dig this thread back up. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I have read the entire Harrington series and in fact it's been the blueprint for the player I've become as of today. I have also recently read Arnold Snyder's Poker Tournament Formula. I play mostly online low stake tourneys SNG's and MTT's and have had success the past year playing online. I also play live and the tournaments I play live are "fast tournaments" by Snyder's definition. In fact I played in one last night, and have a great example of how Harrington's M is not effected by tournament speed as Mason Malmuth has stated.

It was the 4th blind level 200/400 blinds and I had 3200 chips (M just over 5). I looked down and saw A7s and everyone had folded to me in middle position so I knew it was a perfect spot to push "all in", outcome not relevant for this discussion. Now to finish my example, knowing this was a fast tourney with 15 minute blinds does this mean I would have pushed "all in" the same way if the blinds were at level 2 50/100 (m over 20) because it's a fast tourney and blinds are going up rapidly?? Of course not, I would either raise or limp, it's my M that made my decision, just as my "all in" push with any two under the gun later on in the tourney was with an M of 3.

I like a few of Snyder's ideas and strategies, but agree completely with Mason and his stance that speed doesn't effect your play, it's M that is the main factor!!