The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[Niediam]

[ QUOTE ]
harringtons books are amazing, period. Snyder has even said that he isnt looking to rewrite what is already out there. he is simply adding on to the great works. I firmly believe that tournament speed has a lot to do with your decisions.






If your M is 20 in a tournament with 90 min levels, and then you have an M of 20 in a tournament with 15 min levels, your stratagy will have to change completly. You can not say well i have an m of 20 so i do this, your m will drop at a greater rate and you need to take greater risks in the faster tournament even if you have a high m. That is all the man is trying to get across, I can not belive it has caused so much commotion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have read maybe 10% of the posts on this topic but I do believe that that one if the issues here is that Harrington and Mason disagree with your above statement.

[jordiepop]

[ QUOTE ]
Harrington and Mason disagree with your above statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

You 110% correct niediam. I just see where snyder is coming from. The points he makes in his book are valid imho. mason keeps insisting that speed has nothing to do with it, I strongly disagree. Thats all

[Pay2DrawOut]

After reading this thread and the myriad others about the disagreements between Snyder and general 2+2 theory, I figured I'd try and clarify some things for those who may not have read Snyder and are trying to figure out whether or not his book has value.

In my opinion, The Poker Tournament Formula (PTF from here on out) has information that is different than any other book out there. For that alone, I think it merits some attention. Which information is worth using, and which to simply disregard, that takes a little bit of critical reading.

The strength of PTF is clearly is Patience Factor formulae. For those who haven't read the book, basically a way to quantify what Snyder calls the speed of a tournament, and what I tend to call "how much tournament I get for my money". The faster the tournament, i.e. the quicker your stack would dwindle in comparison to blinds, the more likely luck takes over and skill becomes less important. These Patience Factors have helped my game dramatically, because I'm finding the right tournament for my style of play. If I'm not mistaken, one of the first chapters of Sklansky and Malmuth's No Limit Hold'em For Advanced Players was about table selection and its importance. I think this is a "tournament version" of that same idea.

The second strength of PTF is the classification of different opponent types. I think the number of easily characterizable opponents tends to form more than just the standard four groups (LAG, TAG, Loose-Passive, Tight-Passive). These groupings and the related strategies for playing against them are very helpful in amateur filled events.

The third most useful idea, in my opinion, is the rebuy and add-on advice. I know Sklansky and Malmuth don't necessarily agree with the idea of rebuying right away, or adding-on if you have a very large stack (admittedly, I haven't read NLHFAP in a while, so if my recollections of S&Ms advice is flawed, please correct me). I know when I first started playing tournaments, I tended to avoid rebuy tourneys because I didn't know whether or not I should be rebuying, and when, etc. I generally think I am one of the best players in the levels of tournaments I play, and I really believe the more chips you can get early, the better off you are.

I know some in these forums tend to look at his rock, paper, scissors metaphor with a little disdain. (Rock equals chips, paper equals cards, scissors equal position) I really think it opens up the eyes of the newer player that might only be playing his cards, then wonders why he's not winning. Basically, it's just a way of saying you need to use all the weapons you have at your disposal. I would argue that each weapon has particular spots in the tournament where it is most effective. I tend to think cards matter more at the beginning of the tournament, chips matter more at the end, and position matters all the time. I think one main flaw of TPF is that Snyder emphasizes all equally all the time, which tends to lead to him playing position without cards early in the tournament.

Finally, I would like to take a look at his actual play recommendations. This is really where I tend to stray from what Snyder advocates. I certainly can't make myself follow his advice to the letter, especially the recommendation to call a standard raise with any two on the button. What I do take from his advice though is the need to take some gambles a little earlier (maybe call with 97s on the button) knowing I need to accumulate some chips soon to counteract the escalating blinds and antes.

I really think Snyder's card advice has some comparison to the styles of Negreanu and Gus Hansen. Almost all professionals tend to shy away from action without premium cards early in a tournament, but Gus and Daniel are mixing it up with seemingly terrible hands early, playing smallball, and slowly accumulating big stacks. I personally don't think that the average newcomer to fast tournaments (Snyder's main demographic) can employ these tactics very successfully, but that might not be so much a criticism of Snyder's strategy, but one of the average player's post-flop play. I know that Snyder has post-flop position play recommendations, but they're very simplistic and I think in their basic form utilized by all good players anyway.

In conclusion, I really think that TPF has brought something to the table that no other poker book has, and I'll repeat this, I think that that fact alone makes for a recommendation to read it. When able to extrapolate the quality information you can use to supplement your game, and the ideas that might not work for your style, that's an important job for the reader.

Chris

[Jbrochu]

Chris, great post. I agree with much of what you had to say.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
In conclusion, I really think that TPF has brought something to the table that no other poker book has, and I'll repeat this, I think that that fact alone makes for a recommendation to read it. When able to extrapolate the quality information you can use to supplement your game, and the ideas that might not work for your style, that's an important job for the reader.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent summary Chris. As one of the more vocal proponents of the PTF in these threads I agree with all your points as well as the summary. It sounds like we've used the PTF to improve our game in much the same way.

I've been asked recently for book recommendations from other players, each of whom are experienced and have reasonably good games, but have never read a poker book. In each case I recommend HOH1 and HOH2 as their first read followed by the PTF. I thing the HOH series is the best their is for getting a solid grounding in tournament strategy, but something more is needed to get beyond that. The PTF guided me toward thinking about things beyond my cards to find additional +cEV situations. Harrington alludes to all of these things, but Snyder spells it out.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
I have read maybe 10% of the posts on this topic but I do believe that that one if the issues here is that Harrington and Mason disagree with your above statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well Mason obviously does. But I haven't seen any solid evidence that Harrington does. Other than some dubious hearsay from Mason, whatever relevant tidbits from HoH that are related to this subject imply to me that Harrington in fact agrees in principle with Snyder. Unless I hear otherwise from Harrington, I'll trust my own reading skills over Mason's desperate attempts to protect 2+2 turf.

[jordiepop]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll trust my own reading skills over Mason's desperate attempts to protect 2+2 turf.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll trust my own reading skills over Mason's desperate attempts to protect 2+2 turf.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the insult. I guess you somehow missed the fact that I did give Snyder's book an 8 on my 1 to 10 review scale and anythig that gets an 8 or higher is something I recommend.

However, there are some flaws in Snyder's book, the most notable being that he didn't realize the tourneys are percentage payback as opposed to being winner take all, and in these threads I have given a number of very specific examples as to exactly where I think his advice is wrong. Yet none of you have ever addressed these spots. In addition, no one has ever given any specific examples of hands that should be played differently because of the time factor. That needs to be done before you can say that Snyder has it right on this point.

MM

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll trust my own reading skills over Mason's desperate attempts to protect 2+2 turf.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the insult. I guess you somehow missed the fact that I did give Snyder's book an 8 on my 1 to 10 review scale and anythig that gets an 8 or higher is something I recommend.

However, there are some flaws in Snyder's book, the most notable being that he didn't realize the tourneys are percentage payback as opposed to being winner take all, and in these threads I have given a number of very specific examples as to exactly where I think his advice is wrong. Yet none of you have ever addressed these spots. In addition, no one has ever given any specific examples of hands that should be played differently because of the time factor. That needs to be done before you can say that Snyder has it right on this point.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason is sometimes wrong and I think he is on tournament speed but no-one should question his integrity. No-one.

[Red_Diamond]

Yes, Mason is sometimes wrong. Remember when he predicted Hold'em would die out because the edge pros had vs the newbs was too great? Remember when he said........

However, while I don't agree with Mason on EVERYTHING, (limit being more complex than other structures for example), I do realize he has been involved in this field a lot longer than I have. If he says something is flawed, I'll stop and dwell on it some, even if I am 99.9% sure it is not.