The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi BarbarianX:

I laughed when I read your question because the fact is that I now play very little. The main time occupier is working on new manuscripts, and this year is a very ambitious year for us in the producing new books department.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Cactus Jack]

You are such a teaser!

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
No. In Harrington on Hold 'em: Vol II, and I'm going by memory, Dan and Bill state that if your M will be changing very soon you should make an adjustment. That will be true whether the rounds are 15 minutes or 60 minutes or more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not it's not. As I already said, if the rounds are 15 minutes, then your M will be changing "very soon" all the time. That's a slight exaggeration, but as I said, substitute 10 minutes, then 8 minutes, then 5 minutes, then 2 minutes. The implication is obvious. There is no specific timeframe where all of a sudden it starts making a difference. It's a smooth curve. This is all intutively obvious stuff and really shouldn't need any explanation or debate at all.

[merc_thunder]

Mason, Whilst i respect the books you write and your ideas, from reading this thread, it seems to me that you ALWAYS think you are right. Poker is played in many different ways, and your style and ideas although brilliant, are not the be all end all for poker players.

Please open up to other authors ideas and styles, and stop being so ignorant. At the end of the day, you are not the best poker player on the planet, and i am sure you will agree there to.

Peace

[JJay1231]

it would be great if somebody could actually PROVE mathmatically for once and for all that speed does or does not make a difference....or has Arnold done that already?

[Jan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I recently had dinner with Dan and we talked about this very subject. Dan's opinion was that having the blinds go up every 15 minutes as compared to every 60 minutes should have absolutely no effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make any sense Mason. Dan already wrote in his book that strategy is affected more than raw M alone would dictate when blinds are coming up very soon. In a fast tournament, the blinds are coming up very soon all the time. If he says the blinds changing every 15 minutes instead of every 60 has absolutely no affect, then it must not have any affect if they change every 10, every 5 or every 1 either. And that makes no sense, even according to Dan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, and while Dan just mentions this fact in HOH2, he goes into somewhat more detail on this subject in HOH1, the only difference being that he does not specifically mention M.

In the section titled Small Stakes Multi-Table Online Tournaments, on page 57 it says, "...The combination of the large number of inexperienced players, short rounds, and rapidly-increasing blind structure means that you're compelled to play quickly and aggressively just to stay ahead of the blinds..."

Then, under the same section on page 58 Dan says "...With so many players playing so aggressively, a conservative strategy ought to pay big dividends, since strong hands rate to get paid very well. If the blinds were increasing slowly, and the rounds were longer, this would certainly be true. But with short rounds and sharp blind increases, a strictly conservative approach won't yield results fast enough to keep your stack from shrinking as the blinds come charging..."

Then, on page 59, last paragraph, "...Fewer hands per round means that you are under more pressure to accumulate chips..."

ALL of the above is exactly what Arnold Snyder addresses in his book. First off, PTF is geared more towards small-stakes weekly and daily live tournaments that are spread by casinos. You have to play in one of these to really appreciate just how quickly the blinds eat up your stack.
Likewise, the small-stakes tournaments online.

For those who play in higher buy-in tournaments where the blinds increase at a slower pace, Arnold Snyder himself concedes that his strategy becomes less useful, and to play in these tournaments you need to develop your poker playing skills to be more competitive.

Jan

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
For those who play in higher buy-in tournaments where the blinds increase at a slower pace, Arnold Snyder himself concedes that his strategy becomes less useful, and to play in these tournaments you need to develop your poker playing skills to be more competitive.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an exaggeration to paraphrase Snyder like this, but I'll do it for affect: "If you want to do well in the slower tournaments, read Harrington." (I'm reading between the lines based on his high recommendation of Harrington's books and other comments.)

So we essentially have a situation where Snyder implicitly agrees with Harrington, but doesn't bother rehashing his advice, and Harrington implicitly agrees with Snyder, but doesn't fully flesh out his M strategy to incorporate rate of change, which is what Snyder has done.

Poker is an evolving field of study, in a sense no different from physics or medicine or... Advances are made more quickly when the contributors complement and feed off each other, rather than dogmatically trying to protect their own turf.

[Red_Diamond]

After reading the first chapter on position, one thing has me raising some eyebrows. On the button he advises calling ANY amount of limpers with just any two cards.

I'm really not so sure on this. If i'm going to come in here, wouldn't it be best to just raise, and steal the blinds from all the limpers? If one calls, you can then still use position on them and perhaps take down a bigger pot which still makes it worth-while to raise.

But by letting a lot of limpers see a flop cheap, I don't think this is really taking advantage of position?

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
But by letting a lot of limpers see a flop cheap, I don't think this is really taking advantage of position?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess the idea is that you're also seeing a flop cheap, and you have the best position to make moves later in the hand when you know more, or if you hit a good hand. Raising 1 limper or calling 1 raiser is a more manageable situation than trying to outmaneuver multiple opponents preflop. Just my guess though, not sure.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
After reading the first chapter on position, one thing has me raising some eyebrows. On the button he advises calling ANY amount of limpers with just any two cards.

I'm really not so sure on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think? While that might be a winning approach under certain circumstances with expert postflop skills, his book devalues expert postflop skills.

Anyone who followed his advice without substantial outside info would be in serious danger of going bust.