The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[jackaaron]

I don't anticipate the review being very good. I am going to continue to give the book a chance, however, as I think it's good to take in as many perspectives as possible.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi chukakhan:

[ QUOTE ]
I am not shocked that the book(Poker Tournament Formula) would get a biased review at twoplustwo forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because of disruptions related to the WSOP I have only read the first 172 pages of the Poker Tournament Formula. But I suspect it will get a much better review than you do. That's because it will definitely help many players do better in tournaments than they currently do even though, as I have already stated, the basic premise is flawed.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is the case. While I am 100 percent sure that it was written independently to the material that appears in Harrington on Hold 'em: Volume II many of the recommended plays are quite similar, and many of the hand examples in Harrington II are from the type of topurnaments that Arnold is addressing.

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the poker tournament books are geared for longer tournaments, blinds greater 1 hr etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

Most of these other so called tournament books are crap. In fact, Arnold even recommends How to Win No-Limit Hold'em Tournaments by Tom McEvoy and Don Vines which is a book that I gave a very poor review to.

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a mis-representation. The Yellow-Orange-Red Zone stuff n Harrington II takes up almost 200 pages.

Best wishes,
Mason

[alegendaryplayer]

I will make a some games to explain my thought questioning process in this threads topic.
The game is simple, it´s a full ring game, texas no-limit holdem style. Everyone get the same amount of chips to start with. Choose an M to. Let say it is 60.
Nothing strange yet, but here come what is different from a normal tournament. It is only one round. And the winner is the one the have got the most chips when the round is over. What my question is, if it´s only one round, (maybe two,if you change the game a little) has it any effect how long the round is? Exampel, would it be correct to wait for nice card if the round contained 500 hands in compare to 15. It seems to me that, this is the point Snyder try to do when he talk about the length of the rounds. I´m not sure i have maid my self clear but i hope you understand what i mean. Maybe some can take over my hypo-game and try to outwind and maybe have a good answer. Because wouldn´t we consider the playing style in comparison to how likly it is to get a Group A, or Group B hand, Hellmuth´s top ten hand, you understand what i mean. Now I´m talking about playing in the green zone where you can play every style but maýbe one is the better depending on the number of hands there is in the level and the likely hood of getting a certain hand. Hope you understand. I kind of consider this when i play, in a non matematical way. And it sounds similar to Snyder, but the M system is my ground if you know what i mean. If you don´t i don´t know if i can answer.

[jackaaron]

Two online tournaments.

1. Stars 3r.
2. AP 2r.

These are low limit rebuys that would have a lot of entrants (in site relative terms).

In the Stars 3r, you're going to have roughly 1200 players.

In the AP 2r, you're going to have roughly 250 players.

If you really increase your stack (but lets say you tread water), you can start the next hour on Stars with min 4500 in chips, and 75/150 blinds.

Because of double add ons (of 2000 chips), you would start the next hour on AP with 7000 chips (1500/1500/2000/2000), and in the 60/120 blinds.

Would these not necessitate different strategies though, even though in both instances you are in the green zone?

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]
If you really increase your stack (but lets say you tread water)

[/ QUOTE ]

This should say if you DON'T really increase your stack

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]

ESSENTIALLY your M dictates your strategy, NOT tornament speed

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Both need to be considered if you are playing a fast tourney. Good lord, has anyone played some of the turbo MTTs? Don't answer the phone--you're Green Zone stack will be blinded away in a few minutes!

The basic equation of M tells you how many orbits you have left before you are blinded/antied out. But it does not consider the length of the levels and the rate of blind increases.

An M of 20 means one thing if the tournament speed allows for 25 orbits per level and the blinds move up very slowly.

An M of 15 means a completely different thing if the tournament allows for only 2 orbits per level and the blinds move up really quickly.

Playing a conservative strategy is a viable option with an M of 20 in the first tournament, but that strategy won't work as well in the second tournament.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi ptmusic:

No. Here's an example.

Let's say you have an M of 30 and are dealt a small pair. Someone else who also has plenty of chips makes a small raise. You should play.

Now suppose it's a litle later in the tournament, perhaps after the levels have just increased and you have the exact same number of chips, have the same small pair, and are against the same opponent who still has plenty of chips, but now your M is 15. You should fold. Notice that this has nothing to do with tournament speed.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

Suppose you have amassed a huge amount of chips. In fact, let's say that it is so much you are a cinch to win the tournament. Should you rebuy?

The problem here is that first place usually pays something like 40 percent (or less) of the prize pool, so the rebuy in this situation has negative expectation.

Snyder recommends that you should always rebuy and add-on. I do agree that this will usually be the case. But he never takes into account the idea that all tournaments today are percentage payback instead of winner take all. Thus I disagree that you should still go ahead and rebuy on those rare occasions when you have amassed a large number of chips.

Specifically, I disagree with his example on page 186 where with $3,200 in chips and the average stack being about $1,000 he goes ahead and purchases another $300. His example of losing $1,800 on a succeeding hand is just what we refer to as results oriented.

One thing for sure, the value of the rebuy does decline because of the percentage payback nature of tournaments the more chips you have. So even if he is correct in purchasing the additional $300 in tournament chips in this example, he can't be correct by much.

This is going to be a very difficult book to review. That's because it will certainly help many of the players who read it to do much better in these tournaments. But from my perspective, it still has some flaws.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi ptmusic:

No. Here's an example.

Let's say you have an M of 30 and are dealt a small pair. Someone else who also has plenty of chips makes a small raise. You should play.

Now suppose it's a litle later in the tournament, perhaps after the levels have just increased and you have the exact same number of chips, have the same small pair, and are against the same opponent who still has plenty of chips, but now your M is 15. You should fold. Notice that this has nothing to do with tournament speed.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

But...and lets use an absurd illustration and take this to it's logical extension to make the point - lets say your are in a touranment that is likely to be comprised of only 4 or 5 hands unless you play and the blinds are such that you fall an "M" every hand. You have enough chips to start with an M of 22, the second hand you will be blinded to an M of 14, the third blinded to an M of 8 and the 4th to an M of 3.

Hands are random so there is a very good chance you will get something debatable, if not outright trash all 4 hands. Of course, that applies to each player - the luck of the draw rules the day.

Small pairs should be played at +20 M, but are "less playable" with an M of 10 - 20 (HOH II).

That being the case and using your logic, in my tournament structure, I should play a small pair on the first hand, but 'probably' NOT on the 2nd and I should probably go all in on the 3rd and definitely go all in on the 4th.

Does it not make sense to play the small pair on not only the first hand...but ALSO the 2nd...as well as the 3rd and 4th? Is it not the speed of the tournament and the number of playable hands you get that dictates this?

---Leavenfish

[trojanrabbit]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you have an M of 30 and are dealt a small pair. Someone else who also has plenty of chips makes a small raise. You should play.

Now suppose it's a litle later in the tournament, perhaps after the levels have just increased and you have the exact same number of chips, have the same small pair, and are against the same opponent who still has plenty of chips, but now your M is 15. You should fold. Notice that this has nothing to do with tournament speed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what I was trying to say.

A lot of people are saying that "fast play" is the right strategy to take in fast tournaments, but also works great in slow tournaments. Doesn't that imply that it's not a tournament speed thing?!? You can't have something based on tournament speed that works good under both conditions. To me it only shows that chip gathering is a good strategy to take when your M is big. It is. But if the reason was tournament speed, you would expect it to do poorly in slow tournaments.

Tysen