The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[jordiepop]

No thats not what im saying. my example might need some refinement. All im saying is that in a longer structure i would play some flop poker. And not be in a hurry to flip a coin for all my chips if i have the time to wait for better spots. Kind of like if i was in a cash game and i knew my opp had qq's and i had ak , i would not go all in against him with ak. its just not worth it. But if i was under a lot of pressure, like i would be in a fast paced tournament, then i def. would. thats all.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason NL is temporarily thriving now is that there's been a major cash infusion from the poker boom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is another way of saying "popularity", which is exactly what I said. i.e. it has nothing at all to do with bad players losing money, which they are doing as we speak.

By the way, how exactly did NL Holdem become popular again? You haven't explained that one. Did showing hole cards on TV suddenly convince all those fish who had "tapped out" that they were mistaken? Did the TV shows remind them of part of their old bankroll they had forgotten about hidden under their mattress?

If NL had become so unpopular (and popularity did dwindle), then why did they decide to start showing NL holdem on TV? Why didn't they show limit if more people were playing that?

If NL tournaments are what's so popular, then how exactly did a huge popularity in NL cash games result from it, where they'll lose money faster? Why don't they want to play in tournaments like they see on TV? Tournaments are popular, but it doesn't explain the high popularity of cash games where people will lose money faster.

[ QUOTE ]
But the NL economy is shrinking as we speak, and will likely die out again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if it's true (and I'm not seeing the evidence of it but you might be right), it proves nothing. Everything dies out and something else becomes popular, or resurges, or whatever. But the reason isn't because bad players are losing money.

Again, the game depends on interest and popularity, not EV. People will be willing to lose money if they enjoy what they're doing. If they get bored after a couple years, they'll go find some other interest to spend their money on. But by no means do they stop playing because they got "busted" by the good players. They might stop playing if tables get too tight and table mates get too serious. But that's only because they're not having fun, not because they're "tapped out" and it's not because they lose money faster at NL than limit. That is happening today. If Mason were right, then there would be a mass exodus of players from NL to limit, to make a go of what's left of their battered bankroll. But when most of the current crop of players get tired of Holdem they'll just quit, they won't switch to limit to stop the bleeding.

[ QUOTE ]
Score: Mason 2, you 0.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me 20, Mason 0. Gee, that was easy to write.

[Jan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If i am in a tournament with an M of 20 and the rounds are 90 mins, If i knew that i was in a coin flip for all of my chips, i might pick a better spot. If i had the same stack in a tournament with 15 min levels , I would very easily take that same coin flip. My m isnt the factor here, its the fact that the blinds will rise so quickly and i will have to play hands much faster than normal.




This is my opinion and i think its valid. You cant just sit there and and say that this reasoning has no merit to it. Well I guess you can, but your thoughts aren't facts. I myself can't deny that the speed of the tournament will change my decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that you believe your expected cashout more than doubles by taking a flip for stacks on the first hand?

Just asking, because that's provably false. Check GTaOT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dan Harrington himself said to push your good hands (Top pair and trips) to the MAXIMUM with the hope of doubling up. So even Dan sees the advantage of doubling up early here. He says that even a pair as low as 99 and 88 go up in value, and unpaired high cards go down.

So, there's your hand examples. Not from Snyder's book, but from Harrington's.

The only reason I can imagine that some of you are not getting it is that you haven't played in many tournaments with fast blind structures and many inexperienced players. Because that is what Snyder's book is written for. He didn't write it and expect someone to be able to enter a WPT event and use his strategies.

And Jeffnc??? (can't remember the actual screen name) has explained it to the tee over and over again in a way that I can't believe some of you still are not able to understand.

Jan

[Jan]

And one very important point about hand examples. Snyder doesn't emphasize hand examples in his book, because his book emphasizes playing position, playing the player, using your stack, etc. to pick up chips.

Why? Because in a tournament where you will be blinded off in a few levels if you never got a hand decent enough to play, you need to use your position and chips to be competitive in a fast tournament. You can't rely on cards.

[smbruin22]

[ QUOTE ]
Score: Mason 2, you 0. And we're not even out of the first quarter yet [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

buddy, i've lost all respect for you.... look up sycophant in the dictionary and then look in the mirror. notice the resemblence. oh, you were so PWNED!!! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, how exactly did NL Holdem become popular again? You haven't explained that one. Did showing hole cards on TV suddenly convince all those fish who had "tapped out" that they were mistaken? Did the TV shows remind them of part of their old bankroll they had forgotten about hidden under their mattress?


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you actually saying TV had no effect?

Why do you think that the population hasn't grown at all and the only players are those that were back then? Some of the old, busted out players now have some cash and might think they may want to give it another go. Along with new players.

TV made it popular again, obviously. For a whole 'new' group of players. Many players I see playing n/l are new.

[ QUOTE ]
If NL had become so unpopular (and popularity did dwindle), then why did they decide to start showing NL holdem on TV? Why didn't they show limit if more people were playing that?

[/ QUOTE ]

They did show limit. Remember, they weren't showing cash games. Just tourneys. Most tourneys were/are N/L. N/L was seen as mostly for tournaments.

[ QUOTE ]
If NL tournaments are what's so popular, then how exactly did a huge popularity in NL cash games result from it, where they'll lose money faster?

[/ QUOTE ]

(new)People started requesting it more. If you hung around a cardroom at all in the last couple years you'd have seen this. Most new players don't realize they'll lose their money faster.

[ QUOTE ]
If Mason were right, then there would be a mass exodus of players from NL to limit, to make a go of what's left of their battered bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what happened before. Along with those that just left holdem altogether. There's a very good possibility it could happen again.

You're also assuming people actually have 'bankrolls' and aren't playing beyond their limits.

b

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
Because in a tournament where you will be blinded off in a few levels if you never got a hand decent enough to play, you need to use your position and chips to be competitive in a fast tournament. You can't rely on cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that if you're in a slow tournament

[ QUOTE ]
where you will be blinded off in a few levels if you never got a hand decent enough to play

[/ QUOTE ]

that you should now wait for a good hand?

MM

[Pay2DrawOut]

Here's a post I made in a separate thread a couple months ago. If you'd like a particular hand that shows that the structure impacts the play of a particular hand in isolation, here you are.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously the main contention of many of the 2+2ers and authors here is that the speed of the tournament is unimportant in any given hand's strategy. The M is the main governing principle in determining general approaches to the hand in question.

According to Harrington, some changes in typical Green/Yellow/Orange/Red Zone play should be made when approaching a change in blinds which will reduce the player's M by some percentage. So, in other words, if a player will soon enter a new zone, he/she should stray from the typical zone strategy despite what their current M says.

So, at which moment do we feel that we need to adjust to this "transition" strategy? Is it if the blinds are going to go up in one hand? One orbit? More?

Since in these discussions it seems making up extremely unlikely tournament scenarios in order to demonstrate one's point is the norm, consider this example: Let's say we have a five person sit-and-go where we all start with 1875 chips. The blinds start at 25/50 so we all start with an M of 25, inside Harrington's Green Zone. On the first hand, let's say I'm UTG and get dealt AQo. If one were to follow Harrington's recommendations, we can actually make any play here. We can be conservative, aggressive, super-aggressive; he gives us all the options. Since he never actually comes up with particular starting hand recommendations per se in short-handed situations, lets say we raise to 225, which I would say is reasonable in this situation, especially given its short-handed status. Once we raise, another player with a “fear of flopping” decides to push all-in. Every one else folds. We're getting 1.318:1 on our money here, and let's say we put his range at 99+, AJs+, AJo+. This, after a little Poker Stoving, puts our equity at 42.693% and so our odds against his range come out to 1.342:1, so a call here would be a little bit -EV. Obviously not much, but nonetheless if we made this play forever, we'd lose money on it.

So we examine our options, should we just drop this hand and wait for another spot? If we fold, we'll still have 1650 chips, or an M of 22, still within the Green Zone of Harrington and with the ability to play whichever style we prefer. That might be an attractive option, and certainly one Harrington might advise given the comfortable Green Zone status we now enjoy. Or should we take our shot now? Here's the catch. In this tournament, the blinds double every hand. So, our current M of 22 will turn into an M of 11 next hand, once the blinds double, putting us squarely in the Yellow Zone. The hand after that, assuming we don't get anything decent in our Yellow Zone hand, our M will drop to 5.5, completely bypassing the Orange Zone, and placing us in the Red Zone where Harrington said himself, all-in is the only move from here on out. After that, if no good hands, you can see the Dead Zone is where we're heading if we don't do something soon.

So, what are the chances we're going to get dealt something in a better spot than we have it now? PokerStove puts AQo in the top 6.5% of hands. (To be quite honest, I'm not sure where they pick out those averages. I'm assuming it's the heads up equity against a random hand, but even if that's not exactly applicable in this example, the 6.5% can't be far off.) So, let's say we can make it three more hands before we have to push with any two. We have a 6.5% chance three times over to get a hand either as good, or better than we have it now. So, about one time in five, we might see something better, but obviously this might be all we're gonna get. I would say this is an argument for taking your shot with the AQo.

Obviously this type of scenario doesn't play out in real tournaments. No one would play in such a tournament even if one existed. But, for those that contend that speed has nothing to do with any particular hand, when is the line drawn saying that we are in the “transition time” and might have to alter our normal strategy? Even if it's only when we're one hand away from a blind change, this tournament would show that the inherent structure of this tournament would alter our play on that hand, despite an M that says that we don't necessarily have to gamble if we don't want to.

I know some tournaments here near Seattle have blind structures that go up every twelve minutes. If you have any particularly pensive players, this can mean any given round of blinds might only last for five hands. I'm sure five hands would be considered in this “transition range” in a slow tournament like a WSOP event. Here, it's the difference between Green Zone safety and teetering on the Orange Zone. The structure of the tournament itself, namely its speed, is the reason that it is imperative to go into a slightly -EV situation is if it's very much +cEV.

If it's not the speed of the tournament that determines when you might have to exploit this change in M strategy, what is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Comments always appreciated.

Chris

[Mason Malmuth]

Suppose you're in a tournament that has fairly long rounds, and you have the exact same situation as your example. That is, on the very next hand, the blinds and antes will double so that if you don't make this call your M will go to 11, but if you make the call, your expectation in terms of chips will be approximately zero -- actually you'll do a little better since you can pick up the blinds and antes as well as your opponents chips, but you'll still have a little bit better than 50 percent chance of being knocked out.

It seems to me that you have basically the exact same decision in both situations and tournament speed has virtually nothing to do with it.

MM

[Pay2DrawOut]

But, again, with long rounds, the chance of getting "a better spot to put your money in" would be of a much higher likelihood. In my admittedly extreme example, the odds of getting something better than AQo are very unlikely. In an hour long round where I might see four or five orbits, the probability of seeing a hand equal to or better than AQo is of a much higher probability.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously if the speed of a tournament is so fast that you can't expect to get a legitimately playable hand in this or the next blind structue you have to make some significant adjustments. -- David Sklansky (from the same thread)

[/ QUOTE ]

My main question is this. According to HoH2, you should make adjustments when the blinds are about to go up. When do we make that distinction? One hand? One orbit? Two orbits? I would wager to say that in a WSOP event, one orbit might be a good "transition time". Well, in some of the fast tournaments I play, you get about ten hands per blind round. One blind round = one orbit. Even with a suitable M, i.e. Green Zone, you might have to play like the Yellow Zone because you're in "transition time".

Thoughts and comments appreciated.

Chris