The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[Greg Miller]

[ QUOTE ]

And, no, superfluouty is not a word...call it poetic license, Bubba, and let it go...

[/ QUOTE ]

Hrm, and here I thought you just misspelled "superfluity." [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[BigBuffet]

[ QUOTE ]
...many more players willing to call with anything early in the tournament. This makes bluff moves difficult to execute, which is why I recommend sticking with better hands early on and opening up your game later. I think there is a lot of frustration with not being able to use your skill to get ahead of some of the "luckier" players in the early rounds. This makes it seem like a more LAG strategy would work better early, but Harrington clearly tells you this is incorrect in HOH I.

[/ QUOTE ]

Opening up early based on chip or position or card moves gives you the benefit of being one of the players at your table to be feared or at least not taken for granted. If you just play tight, you will tend to drive out worse hands or get called by better hands.

And yes, many fishy players call with anything. And that may be a function (bell curve I suppose) of tournament level and structure. By that I mean that at the left side of the bell curve there would be the lower level fast tournies. In the middle of the curve would be the optimim levels. At the right side of the curve there would be tournies that are higher level fast tournies but for which satellites would allow more fishy players to enter. Same for slow tournies.

So I am saying there is a sweet spot in terms of tourny levels where the number of fish is minimized and for which getting incorrectly called when making a move and therefore sucked out on is minimized.

But even so, if you establish yourself as a presence at the table using Snyder's book, you will minimize the negative effect of others' fishy play at most levels (probably higher than Snyder level 3 or 4).

[BigBuffet]

[ QUOTE ]
...the whole quantification of skilled tournaments is great, even though some will argue it's obvious, the author has gone to quite a bit of trouble to gather info for alot of vegas, online and other location tourneys on his website (the book has some). i think that resource will be useful for alot of posters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget, Snyder gives the formula so you can construct a spreadsheet to analyze any tournament (live or online) that you are considering entering.

[ QUOTE ]
...regarding some of the more controversial things like calling normal-sized raises from the button with any two cards (no callers) seems sort of questionable to me too. i've never totally sure if arnold thinks you should do this often or occasionally (i'm sure it's cited in text but it's alot to wade thru and remember). occasionally i think it's o.k., and obviously have a read on opponent and where they are raising from.

[/ QUOTE ]

Making moves in Snyder's book is based on chip, card and position or a combination of the three. The gist is not just waiting for Group 1 hands or the chance to slowplay and trap that HOH expounds in more detail on due to longer time levels.

Snyder is also not saying to play insane either. Radar has also pointed out this incorrect assertion by Mr. Malmuth a few times.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget, Snyder gives the formula so you can construct a spreadsheet to analyze any tournament (live or online) that you are considering entering.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow BigBuffet, it looks like you're going back and reviving every PTF post that was almost dead. There is now a spreadsheet on his website that you can download to do this rather than build your own. Look for the link to "mathboy's patience factor calculator" on the left side.

[smbruin22]

buffet, agree with everything you said.... as i told someone else, i think arnold's book opens up your eyes to how fast you have to play.

radar's example (which david gave; i'd like to find original source for myself) was just crazy. not sure if she's speaking for arnold or not, but that was a laughable example. and she was talking about 40 minute rounds, which to me isn't that "fast". with 40 minute rounds, i think you can "wait for cards" (if that's your preferred style)

[BigBuffet]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow BigBuffet, it looks like you're going back and reviving every PTF post that was almost dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just read the entire thread between yesterday and today. So I had much catching up to do.

That many don't seem to get the book is good for those that do.

I also feel that some do get it, but play it as though they don't because it's either a threat to their ego (in the same way that modifying one's incorrect first impression of a new player at the table is difficult to do psychologically) or more importantly they realize that the book exposes their modus operandi and therefore they need to disengenuously poo-poo it.

Specifically, I am referring to the player type that Snyder identifies as "Baseball-cap Kids". Their M.O. is now out. Tighter players can now fight them on their own turf and actually become gear-changers by incorporating Snyder and HOH into an arsenal in slow tournaments. And even in fast tournaments with longer blind levels (relatively speaking) there may be some occasions to trap ala Harrington. To pick numbers it may be 10% HOH and 90% Snyder in fast tournaments and the opposite in slow tournaments.

I have been using PTF the past couple of weeks and find it easier than previously to go deeper and past the bubble. Making moves against tight players works like a hot knife through butter and making moves against fast players is equally effective because they aren't used to having someone play back.

As someone pointed out, PTF is the cherry on the tournament book cake. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[smbruin22]

BigBuffet, can you please tell us whether you have some sort of relationship (friendship?) with PTF author?

because frankly, while i agree with much of what you say, it sounds like one of those questionable amazon reviews written by an author's friend (reference to many books in this manner)

[BigBuffet]

I do not know Arnold or Radar. I really really like the book and am just putting in my two cents.

In the 1980's I used to play blackjack and counted cards, and therefore I am familiar with his other books. I have found his writing to be of a high quality--again in my opinion.

[smbruin22]

BigBuffet, fair enough... i appreciate your comments! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[jeffnc]

[ 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 ]

I'm coming to this thread late, but I have to comment.

It's laughable that you can't acknowledge this simple concept, and that, as good as Harrington's explanation of "M" is, it's not complete. Harrington touched on it briefly when he used examples where he said "your M is X, but the blinds are hitting you in just one hand" or "your M is Y but the blinds are going up in one hand". And he goes on to say exactly what you won't say - it affects your strategy since it affects your effective M value. In other words, there is more to it than your raw M value alone. He just didn't "codify" it. (Harrington codified M, or at least popularized it and showed how it affected strategy. Snyder takes it further and codified speed and showed how it affected strategy.)

Simple extreme example to make it easy for anyone to grasp. Blinds are 25/50, your stack is 1,000. You are on the button and your M is 13. Blinds go up after each hand. Next hand, your M is 7. Next hand your M is 4. Next hand your M is 3. Next hand your M is 2. You only been dealt 5 hands, you've folded each of them, you haven't paid an ante, and you haven't paid a blind. Your M has dropped from 13 to 2. And you think that won't affect your strategy?