The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[1p0kerboy]

Hi Mason Malmuth. You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that it is a very confused work. Much of the problem has to do with the idea that fast tournaments require a different strategy from slow tournaments. (Fast and slow here refers to how quickly the blinds and antes go up.) This is the same mistake that Tom McEvoy made in his original tournament book over twenty years ago. Tournament speed has virtually nothing to do with correct tournament strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I have read MOST of this thread (not all) I have not read The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder. However, I have to slightly disagree with your position. Let me explain.

First let me point to Tournament Poker for Advanced Players by David Sklansky. In it he says:

[ QUOTE ]
But there is another rason to eschew close gambles early on...What I am speaking of involves the presumption that you are one of the best players in the tournament. That being the case, you should avoid close gambles, especially for large portions of your chips. It may seem that giving up a positive EV gamble can never be right. However, even from a purely mathematical standpoint, you sometimes should. (pp 19-20)

[/ QUOTE ]

He goes on to show an example of how passing up on a small edge today for a bigger edge tomorrow is a good idea. In an extremely slow paced tournament, the better player is very likely to find the bigger edge he was looking for. However, this is much less likely to happen in a faster paced tournament. Hence, it would probably be better for the player to not pass up on ANY +EV. As you can see, the strategy of this player has changed.

Sklansky also reiterates this point on page 64:

[ QUOTE ]
Remember earlier we showed mathematically that if tomorrow you have the opportunity to make a great bet for a certain fixed amount of money, you should pass up merely good bets today if losing them will keep you from making that great bet tomorrow

[/ QUOTE ]

I will agree that the adjustment in strategy is small and only beneficial if you are one of the best players, but it is still there nonetheless.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi 1p0kerboy:

Just thinking about your point quickly, I suspect that you may be right. Specifically, it might be right for very good players to gamble a little more in close situations in these type of quick tournaments if they can anticipate a large drop in their M in the near future because of an increase in stakes.

Thanks for making a good point.

Best wishes,
mason

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi 1p0kerboy:

Just thinking about your point quickly, I suspect that you may be right. Specifically, it might be right for very good players to gamble a little more in close situations in these type of quick tournaments if they can anticipate a large drop in their M in the near future because of an increase in stakes.

Thanks for making a good point.

Best wishes,
mason


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me state that other than this rare example I agree with everything you have stated in this thread. The author seems to be 'missing the point' with several of his statements.

1. Most importantly, making plays to attempt to run over the filed early on is mostly wrong in these kind of tournaments. The reason being is that the field is usually weak-passive, especially on the internet. These players don't have as much invested as a player in the bigger buy-ins. However, while finding certain stealing opportunities and exploiting them might be a little more rare, they certainly do exist.
2. He consistently refers to the tournament becoming a "crapshoot". While this portion of the tournament is very volitile, a good player certainly has a nice edge against a below average strength field. This is for several reasons. First, it is oftentimes not too difficult to get it all-in with a nice edge. Second, when you steal during this stage it is worth much more because the blinds and antes are much bigger. David Sklansky states in his book Tournament Poker for Advanced Players on page 39:

[ QUOTE ]
This book will not have a real lot to say about later round play. That might those of you who know that I believe most of a good player's profit comes in these later rounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, admittingly I have not read the book. I don't know if I'm even interested in reading it due to the fallacious concepts.

But kudos to the author for pointing out that as a skilled player you should at least seek tournaments which have a better structure as it increases your expectation. From what I understand, he even has a structure ratings system. I thought about making something like this a couple of years ago.

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi 1p0kerboy:

Just thinking about your point quickly, I suspect that you may be right. Specifically, it might be right for very good players to gamble a little more in close situations in these type of quick tournaments if they can anticipate a large drop in their M in the near future because of an increase in stakes.

Thanks for making a good point.

Best wishes,
mason

[/ QUOTE ]

After reading the book (skipping the parts that 2+2 really has covered extensively) I thought this was the most profound point. That if you are a good player, you can exercise you entire ability later on if you have a big stack. However, you need to acquire a big stack to do so. That means being aggressive early.

As an aside, in my mind tournament speed is akin to hands per level. In fast tournaments you get fewer hands per level. In slow tournaments you get more hands per level. Essentially then, both "M" and hands per level should determine your play (this is of course ignoring other players at your table who should determine your play probably more so than anything else).

Here is an example of how hands per level can influence your play: If I have an M = 21 and am dealt AJo in EP, I would fold if I knew I had plenty of hands left in this blind level (say 50 minutes). However, if the blinds were soon increasing (say the level only lasts 10 minutes) I would be more tempted to play this hand as the increase in blinds next level will reduce my M.

Put another way: If you only get so many hands to choose from before you blind out (or get low enough that you can't play as well) you want to choose the best ones. In this case, AJo might be the best hand I'll see for a while, and most likely w/my M still in the green zone, so I am going to play it to try to keep my M there.

Shermn27

[smbruin22]

this book (along with HOH3) was delivered yesterday....

very torn on this book....

i think 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.

i think the book's emphasis on position and aggression is excellent... i think the biggest thing i've taken from it is "don't give up the lead" (i think with position, but i'm not totally sure). if you're sole opponent checks, don't start thinking he's slow-playing a monster, he probably doesn't like the flop.

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.

i think the strategy necessitates that your opponents care greatly if they bust out.... doesn't seem like that's the case in online. and arnold suggests often hammering with a weak hand on the flop, turn and river thinking people may be more inclined to fold on river if all cards are out (i think). alot of calling stations out there though too (make the bet big enough)

one great point the book makes is that those harrington zones (can't remember the colours - red, yellow, orange, green???) assume alot longer blind levels than the great majority of us play. for all the experts in this forum, i seldom see this point and it's an excellent one to point out when people suggest harrington as key SNG material. arnold says you have to get very aggressive way earlier(i.e. higher M) than dan suggests (i think some think dan's dangerous zones are too high. oh well, lots of opinions)

anyhow, a very interesting read. i think you can learn alot from this book and a dissenting view is always valuable. like SSHE, i think it can be very easy to misapply alot of the stuff too though. i'll reserve final judgement until i'm finished (book has some very unique sections like rebuy tournaments, and the player classification section was interesting).....

anyone who's read (or wrote) the book, feel free to correct me on anything that i didn't portray accurately.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

This is from page 166. It refers to a fast tournament where at the beginning everyone has started with a lot of chips. Arnold writes:

[ QUOTE ]
In this type of topuenament, don't make the mistake of thinking that you are in the "survival" portion of a slow tournament where you can be very selective about the hands you play. There is no survival period in a fast tournament, even when you start out with a wealth of chips. You don't have 60 minute blind levels. You have 60 minutes to make some money or you will be short stacked. This is the time to be aggressive against all those survivalists. Play loose, get into more pots, and take position shots as appropriate. Be brave. If you lose chips on aggression plays, no problem. Now you can get even more aggressive on your shorter stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, even though I agree with the strategy advice, tournament speed has nothing to do with it. This is exactly the way experts would play in a non-tournament side game when the stacks are deep. That's because of the overwhelming implied odds, and the fact that they often want to resize the bets on the later streets in case they get a very good flop. (For more on this see No Limit Hold 'em: Theory and Practice by David Sklansky and Ed Miller.)

By the way, in the big slow tournaments, as is pointed out in the Harrington on Hold 'em books, many of the best players are playing exactly as Arnold describes here. They refer to it as "smallball."

Best wishes,
Mason

[Shaman]

Mason:

I bought my copy of the Bishop's book at the Borders at Decatur/Sahara. I picked up the very last copy of the book that they had in stock. But before I paid for it, I left it behind a book called The Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding by Arnold Schwarzenegger. I did this so that I would not have to carry anything around with me while I was looking for another book which wasn't poker related (my palms sweat too much that's why I did it). Anyway, while I was doing so in comes of all people Dan Harrington! Small world, huh. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Perhaps, he was looking for Snyder's book but couldn't find it because I already had it locked up? Just thought I'd share this coincidence with you.

[Zim]

[ QUOTE ]

Radar writes:

In order for Mason and Piers to show that Arnold's argument is invalid, they have to show that one of the following items is mathematically wrong:

1. They have to show mathematically that fast play will not more frequently keep you in the green zone in fast tournaments than conservative play.

OR

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.

OR

3. They have to show that you are not limited in your skill options when you sink below the green zone.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a pretty clear stand to take.

So far, the answers have been rather muddled and evasive. It's rather disapointing given that this is a forum dedicated to improving your poker.

Anyone care to step up?

Best,
Zim

[Piers]

[ 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?

[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