The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
This is what I don’t like, its nice to build your stack early, but the important thing is to consistently make +EV decisions. All else is waffle.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is the case (advocating taking -EV gambles). If I could summarize the premise of the book in one sentence it might be that it is better (more +EV) to build your stack before blind pressure forces you to take on more risk than waiting until the blind pressure starts impacting everyone and the tournament becomes an all-in fest. He suggests situations where this can be done with relatively little risk (therefore +EV) that might go against conventional wisdom, such wisdom having been formed without taking into account how little time you have before the blinds become a major factor.

[ QUOTE ]
You appear to be agreeing with my statement you quoted while claiming to disagree with it. When I said none of the four factors took precedence, I did not mean on each hand they were all equally important. On each hand one or two of the factors will often be irrelevant and sometimes one factor will supersede all others. However over a course of a fast structure tournament all four factors will be equally important in your decision-making.

[/ QUOTE ]

I misunderstood you here. We agree that all these factors are important and that different factors will have more weight in different situations. Our only apparent disagreement here is whether each hand should be considered in isolation. I suspect we're probably really in agreement there as well. I don't think you believe meta-game considerations such as table image don't matter at all.

[ QUOTE ]
The impression I have got, which may be wrong because I have not read the book only this thread, is that the author is a bit confused but a large part of what he advises ends up being ok.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if you read the book you might find that you agree with most of it - the confusion might be those of us who aren't the author trying to describe it for him. Also it's hard to summarize a concept in just a few paragraphs that takes a chapter of the book.

[trojanrabbit]

Imagine the following (unfair) game. You're playing tournament poker, but the button is frozen on you. You never have to post any blinds. Make it a winner-take-all game so that you can't gain by just sitting around. Should you be playing as if your stack had an very large M? No. If the blinds were large enough that everyone around the table had M's in red zone, the optimal play should be playing push/fold poker. If there is a +EV situation you should take it. What matters is not tournament speed. It's not how long you will last without playing a hand. It's about how much play you have post-flop and what kind of implied odds exist based on stack size. The reason we play differently in the orange zone than the green is because of implied odds, not because we can only last 7 orbits instead of 25.

[ QUOTE ]
In the section on short handed tables HOHII introduces the concept of "effective M." In effect this indicates that if you have an M of 12 (yellow zone) that your M is adjusted to 6 (orange zone) if you're at a 5 handed table or 4 (red zone) if you're at a 3 handed table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never really come to grasp with Harrington's logic here. Obviously he can't be saying that you should be playing push/fold red zone with an M of 12 (18 BB) just because it's 3 handed! Yes, I can't last as long folding every hand but who cares? It's implied odds. I'm not pushing my 18BB stack here. The strategy changes because it's 3-handed, not because my "effective M" is suddenly 4.

Tysen

[Shaman]

Is it possible that he could be right? Is it conceivable that we, Mason included, are having tunnel vision - totally blinded to seeing things from outside the box?

This guy Snyder invented the Zen Count, the best blackjack cardcounting methods ever invented. Maybe he has a point that we are missing.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ 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 ]

This isn't a new idea. See the essay "Should You Play Too Many Hands Early in a Tournament?" in my book Poker Essays, Volume II.

MM

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason we play differently in the orange zone than the green is because of implied odds, not because we can only last 7 orbits instead of 25.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your frozen button game this would be true. Of course in that situation you could fold until you got the nuts. Harrington is quite clear as already quoted in other posts that one component of M is how desperate you are to pick up a pot to avoid being blinded out. Some of the difference in how you play in different zones are due to implied odds, others due to being in danger of being blinded out. Thus the reason small PPs become playable again in the red zone. You're hoping to take down the blinds or win a coin flip to improve your position rather than playing them for set value as you would in the green zone. The reason for the different play in the red zone than the other zones is clearly due to the number of orbits we can last.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if you read the book you might find that you agree with most of it - the confusion might be those of us who aren't the author trying to describe it for him. Also it's hard to summarize a concept in just a few paragraphs that takes a chapter of the book

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The confusion is that tournament speed has nothing to do with your strategy and you haven't given any arguments that change that.

MM

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Arnold:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Success in fast tournaments is not primarily about exploiting weak/tight players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't misrepresent what I've said. You're the one who advocates auto-calling raises when on the button. I'm saying that can only work against a certain type of player and that it has nothing to do with tournament speed.

[ QUOTE ]
And my book shows mathematically and in great detail why it is not primarily about playing according to the current size of your chip stack relative to the current blinds/antes. It is about making enough money during the portions of the tournament where you have the greatest control over your results to go into the crapshoot portions of a tournament with an advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've written about this exact same idea before. See my book Poker Essays Volume II, "Should You Play Too Many Hands Early in a Tournament?" page 176. Again it has nothing to do with tournament speed. It's also the whole premise Eric Lindgren's book is built around.

[ QUOTE ]
If you play Harrington’s conservative green zone strategy during the first hour of the Orleans Friday night tournament, when your current stack is in the green zone, you have only 30 hands to make money with conservative play. When you have time to read The Poker Tournament Formula, you will see that I show mathematically that you cannot expect to make enough money on premium cards and position during those 30 hands to have an advantage once the crapshoot starts in that second hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a misrepresentation of how Harrington and Robertie say to play. They don't sit there when in the green zone just waiting for aces and kings. Here's a direct quote from page 129 of Harrington II.

[ QUOTE ]
The Green Zone: You have 20 or more times the pot. This is where you want to spend as much of the tournament as possible. All styles are open to you. You can be conservative, aggressive, or super-aggressive, and switch back and forth among them as you wish. All moves are available. You can watch a raise and a reraise, and come over the top of both players, and still have plenty of chips left for another move later in the hand. In the Green Zone you’re a fully-functional poker player, and it’s worth taking some risks to stay here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Best wishes,
Mason

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't see what tornament speed has to do with it.
no matter how fast it is, whilst in the green zone you play green zone strategy. taking extremes suppose tornament speed was very very very fast, but the starting stack was sufficent to last the first hour and still be in the green zone. no way are you going to play any other way than green zone stragtgy no matter how fast tornamnet speed right?

ESSENTIALLY your M dictates your strategy, NOT tornament speed as the following demonstrates.
suppose i am in orange zone, but the blinds double up next hand putting me in red zone. obviously i will still play orange zone strategy and not red.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tournament speed determines how long a stack size will be in a zone without playing and winning a hand. M determines the zone you are in and what hands/how hands should be played.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Al:

No. It's important when playing a tournament to try to keep your M at a comfortable level (above 20 according to Harrington), and when your M is above 20 you're a "fully functional poker player" meaning that you can and should take risks to maintain your comfortable M.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
The tournaments Harrington plays in have extremely long blinds (say 1 to 1.5 hours) and each level there will be several orbits before the blinds go up.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to read (and study) the Harrington on Hold 'em books. You will see that many of the examples come from quick tournaments (usually the Internet).

MM