The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[zuluking]

[ QUOTE ]
does anyone agree with arnolds rock, paper, siccors, concept?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a fast tournament structure versus lousy/typical B&M players? Yes.

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker is a wagering game. Every time it’s your turn you are giving an option to place a wager. If its +EV you make the wager you take it otherwise you don’t. That’s is not much else to poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely true. +EV in a tournament is making the decisions that give you the best chance of making it in the money and, often more importantly, making it deep. I don't think anything in the book contridicts this with the exception of the section on chopping at the final table that has already been mentioned.

[ QUOTE ]
Short stack tournament situations are all about getting your whole stack in with the best of it. Once the M’s get down below 7 the games is virtually solvable, and I assume that many people have already approximately solved it.

You gain over others in these ‘crap shoots’ in two ways.

1) By failing to get your stack in when you are not getting the right money odds.
2) Your opponents missing profitable opportunities to get their stack in with good money odds in situations, which you would not miss.

It’s not all luck, it just might appear that way.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you get your whole stack in as a 55/45 favorite 5 times in a row what is your chance of surviving? One premise of the book is that you have to build your stack early so that in the end game you can absorb some beats when you're the favorite which will happen.

[ QUOTE ]
There are four factors to take into consideration, your cards, the stack sizes, your position and the range of hands your opponents are playing. None of these factors should take presidency over the others. The speed of the tournament is irrelevant. You can usually treat each hand in isolation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to make your decision based on the situation. Part of the situation is all the factors you've described. I disagree that no factor takes precedence over the other. Instead blending all of the factors into your decision and deciding on the relative importance of each at that specific point is what's needed. Here's an extreme example. It's folded to you in the small blind. A case could be made that you could (maybe should) attempt a blind steal with any 2 cards. However if it's been folded to you the last 2 times you were in the SB and you've stolen from the BB each time you might not want to do this with a weak holding since he's probably looking for a chance to play back at you (no longer considering each hand in isolation). If you haven't stolen from him in this situation lately it makes more sense. But what if the BB is all in or only has 1 BB left. Stack size now take on increased importance. Now you might not want to raise with any 2 because you're virtually guaranteed to be called.


[ QUOTE ]
At the final table or with over 10% of the tournament chips ICM reasoning takes precedence. As a rough guide play about 50-70% tighter with an average stack, play ChipEV=moneEV poker with the smallest or largest stack, even looser with a very large stack in situations when you can knock someone out. Play with ‘Sit and Go Power tools’ to get a better feel.

Ask your self what use you can put your time if you get knocked out of the tournament. If you’re a significantly better than average player and you will not be able to play at a similar level if you get knocked out, you might want to tighten up a little as you get down to the last few tables. There was article in the 2+2 magazine a little while ago putting numbers on this effect.

If you have an M around 1-3, you’re in danger of being blinded out. Going all in in the big blind is a very bad bet, you should play slightly more loosely before this happens to reduce its likely hood. E.g. UTG with an M of 3, I might treat this as an M of 2.5 for purposes of selecting a pushing range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing in the book contridicts any of this. The premise is that you need to get to the "crapshoot" with more chips and taking a "wait for premium cards" approach in the early going gives you no chance of going deep when the premium cards don't come and you've got very little time until the blinds start eating you alive.


[ QUOTE ]
During the rebuy period, if you are significantly better than average player you should loosen up in situations where you could get busted. Each time you rebuy you are getting to buy chips at a significant discount. Just don’t overestimate your ability.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I remember it the section on the impact of rebuys and playing in the rebuy period coincides with convential 2+2 wisdom and doesn't contridict anything you're saying here.

[ QUOTE ]
Remember the all in hand races is the backbone of poker. There is an illusion people have that they can somehow escape the race effect by superior play even in low M situations. They can’t, and not only because they are usually overestimating their ability.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. To go deep or win you're going to be racing. As mentioned above it is just better to be racing with the larger chip stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

After reading this ENTIRE 14.3 million post thread. I find that this post and the original post he's quoting as DONKISH.

If your not taking the worst of it at times in a poker tournament then your not playing right. Even Mason admits this in "Gambling Theory"

[quadaces9999]

ive read about 120 pages of this book and im kinda confused. his advice seems to contradict himself sometimes. Does anyone else have this conclusion or are his ideas more clear if the entire book is read. to be honest im ready to give up on the book because i dont want to waste my time and effort if something isint really going to help me.

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
ive read about 120 pages of this book and im kinda confused. his advice seems to contradict himself sometimes. Does anyone else have this conclusion or are his ideas more clear if the entire book is read. to be honest im ready to give up on the book because i dont want to waste my time and effort if something isint really going to help me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This book is the BIBLE for tournaments in State's like WA where you start with 500 chips blinds start at 50-100 and you have 10 minute levels.

Even the big hitters here mason and sklansky say this is a good book that can help you a lot. Many players in WA who play in the quickie tournaments live by this book so I don't agree with you post.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously? Have you read this? I'm still laughing at some of the things said in this book.

I'm not going to trash this book (any more), but SO many things in it are so far from conventional 2+2 wisdom that I was just wondering if anyone read it, and had opinions.

Rock, paper, scissors anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi folks,

I have only recently took possession of and read PTF.

It is only now that I can see how little the OP understands.

The book is innovative and, as this thread bears testimony to, deeply controversial.

Leaving all that aside look at the original post:PTF must be wrong, it does not agree with two plus two. OP is a logician of the highest order, not.

I always find it funny when people make remarks they think are knowing but just make them look foolish.

Paper, Rock, Scissors anyone. Perhaps.

(It should be noted I have commented in this thread before on the general topic of tournament speed.)

[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]
Now don't you think it's a little silly for Snyder to state:

[ QUOTE ]
We have only more recently realized that Harrington's strategies are weak in slow tournaments as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

because if this statement was accurate, how was it possible for Dan to have achieved his tournament results?

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhhh ... because the game has changed since Dan achieved his tourney results? Or, how about, in practice Dan doesn't rotely follow the strategies in his books ? etc.

But what's really important is that it's foolish to think that rotely following textbook strategies for winning tournies will get you anywhere.

Most of the concepts presented in books on poker tournies are concepts that you don't need a book to learn. The concepts intuitively become obvious to any intelligent, creative, dedicated player who studies the game as he plays, and has played a hundred tournies or so (easy on the inet).

Harrington invented "M"? No, he did not, he just named it. M has been around and been understood since the very first poker tournies. M was a very clear concept to me very early in my tourney playing career, perhaps as soon as the first time I was playing at 10th level blinds. Most other "textbook concepts" are similar.

It's really silly for Synder to say that Harrington's strategies are losing strategies, but it's just as silly to say that Harrington's strategies are winning strategies.

And don't forget that the landscape of poker tournies is changing all the time.

Snyder's book should be sub-titled "A Tournament Poker Book for the Blackjack Crowd". Maybe a formulaic approach can work in blackjack (if they let you play) but it can't work in poker.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
Snyder's book should be sub-titled "A Tournament Poker Book for the Blackjack Crowd". Maybe a formulaic approach can work in blackjack (if they let you play) but it can't work in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair and reasonable comments bustedromo, except for this one. Not that the statement is entirely wrong, but that you appear to be judging a book by it's cover (or more specifically it's title). Have you read the book? I find the use of the word formula in the title a bit misleading. The PTF is much less a formula than "Kill Phil" for example (even factoring the alternative or advanced strategies KP includes). The PTF is no more formulaic than HOH.

[Cactus Jack]

[ QUOTE ]
The PTF is no more formulaic than HOH.

[/ QUOTE ]

In some way it's actually LESS formulaic. Snyder talks about playing without cards. What could be formulaic about that?

[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Snyder's book should be sub-titled "A Tournament Poker Book for the Blackjack Crowd". Maybe a formulaic approach can work in blackjack (if they let you play) but it can't work in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair and reasonable comments bustedromo, except for this one. Not that the statement is entirely wrong, but that you appear to be judging a book by it's cover (or more specifically it's title). Have you read the book? I find the use of the word formula in the title a bit misleading. The PTF is much less a formula than "Kill Phil" for example (even factoring the alternative or advanced strategies KP includes). The PTF is no more formulaic than HOH.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I haven't read it. It's too time-consuming reading all these books only to find out after each 20 pages it's just another concept that was already intuitively obvious to me.

Yes, the 1st (and even the 2nd) derivative of M matter -- I don't see what Malmuth is arguing about. But that's just another concept that's always been intuitively obvious to me.

Poker tournies, backgammon, chess, etc. are games which are all about thinking ahead, anticipating how the future is likely to be in its most prominent variations.

I think an awful lot of serious tourney poker players have a much better intuitive grasp on these concepts than they might think when they open up a huge book and think "oh dear, it's much more difficult than I ever imagined".

[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The PTF is no more formulaic than HOH.

[/ QUOTE ]

In some way it's actually LESS formulaic. Snyder talks about playing without cards. What could be formulaic about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've only read this thread, not the book, but Snyder seems to be advocating a strategy that de-emphasizes watching and analyzing the tendencies and psychological makeup of the other players.

Instead what is emphasized is cards, M, M', M'', position and stack sizes and their inter-relationship (e.g. your stack size vs a limper's or raiser's stack size; your stack size vs the sizes of the spots behind you w.r.t fold-equity; etc.)

This is formulaic in that you can devise and refine a strategy and apply it in any tourney you decide it's EV+ for you to play. You can spend all of your thought-energies analyzing how your present scenario ranks probabalistically within the range of (similar in one or more respects) scenarios you are likely to face over many similar tournies and act accordingly.

Snyder's is really an inet tourney strategy. In live tournies you give up way too much, except maybe in low buyin donkaments where most of the players play the same way (but b/c of TV I'm not really sure those exist anymore).