Response to Sklansky's article "Chips Changing Value in Tournaments"

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
Snyder's book changed all that. I recognized myself in one chapter (a classic wuss) and finally, finally understood position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Brann:

This is a little of the problem. You would never know it from reading Snyder's articles that I recommended his book and agree with most of the strategy. According to him, the advice from David and myself is completely different from what it is.

But I did say that some of his premises are wrong. For example, tournament speed doesn't enhance the value of position. No limit hold 'em enhances the value of position, especially against weak players which are very common to the small buy-in local Las Vegas tournaments that Snyder's book addresses. For more discussion on the value of position in no limit hold 'em, see No Limit Hold 'em: Theory and Practice by David Sklansky and Ed Miller.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Brann]

Al,

Disregarding any questions about who's right or wrong, I have to agree with you as to your characterizations of the players.

I think the S&M books are a great theoretical foundation, while the PTF provides a clear way to utlize what one has learned. HOH is somewhat a cross between the others, using S&M theory while offering insight into how Dan plays.

I think the graphs some of the posters have developed are helping to clarify things. I'm not a numbers guy by any means, but I've always felt it was wrong to say that, with a big stack, the chips you can win are worth less than the chips you bet. There certainly has to be a point of diminishing returns, but if I'm huge-stacked at the final table and everyone else is fighting for 2nd then it is absolutely WRONG for me to "let them fight it out."

I mean, by the time we get HU, I'd rather have increased my stack to 90% of the chips in play than have my opponent feel even remotely comfortable.

In a 45 person MT SNG at Stars there are 67,500 chips in play. If I have 40,000 of them at the FT, then everyone else averages just under 3,500. If I sit back and let them sort it out, I might still have 40,000 when we get HU but my lone opponent will have 27,500. I'd rather he came into that situation with only 9 or 10K or less.

Now, I can't put any kind of exact figure, value or percentage-wise on this, but I've seen it time and again. The big stack plays too tight at the final table and someone catches up. There HAS to be an advantage to continuing to dominate as players bust at the final table and the field shrinks. Keeping the heat on the shorter stacks often forces them to fold hands they should play or to play big hands too timidly. With all the numbers crunching going on, let's not forget the psychological aspects of the game.

Maybe there's no way to calculate this, but if I play by the theory that the chips I bet are worth more than the chips I can win I'll be doomed to supertight play which flat-out just doesn't feel right. I just wish I could provide some numbers to back it up.

Brann

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the graphs some of the posters have developed are helping to clarify things. I'm not a numbers guy by any means, but I've always felt it was wrong to say that, with a big stack, the chips you can win are worth less than the chips you bet. There certainly has to be a point of diminishing returns, but if I'm huge-stacked at the final table and everyone else is fighting for 2nd then it is absolutely WRONG for me to "let them fight it out."

I mean, by the time we get HU, I'd rather have increased my stack to 90% of the chips in play than have my opponent feel even remotely comfortable.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, the only graph that shows what's happening is the top graph in trojanrabbit's post. It's a bit steep and would represent the stack of a highly skilled player.

Second, I think you're underestimating the fact that if you get involved in a lot of hands, you may lose some of them. Sure, I'd like to have 90% of the chips when we get heads-up. But I'd also rather have 70% than 50%.

Third, you gain EV when one of your opponents eliminates another opponent. A 70% stack is worth more heads-up than three-way. If you eliminate an opponent you gain EV too, from the chips you've won. But if you try to eliminate that player to get those chips, you may lose chips and lower EV. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to eliminate him. Just that the benefit may not be as great as you think, and the downside may be greater than you think.

[David Sklansky]

"Maybe there's no way to calculate this, but if I play by the theory that the chips I bet are worth more than the chips I can win I'll be doomed to supertight play which flat-out just doesn't feel right"

Your conclusion is completely wrong. The theory only forces tight play for BIG CALLS. Not for small bets that might not be called.

[Brann]

"Your conclusion is completely wrong. The theory only forces tight play for BIG CALLS. Not for small bets that might not be called."

Thanks for clarifying, David. I can certainly see the point. But let me ask, as the shorter stacks get desperate and start pushing with, say Ace-rag or worse, shouldn't I at least be thinking about calling with ATs, AJ, KQs or even less? Let's face it, the short stacks are hurting. And while most of them will hunker down and pray for good cards, there are always one or two who fight to survive, raising with JTs, K9s, or worse. It's not at all unusual for people to have 1,800 chips coming into the ft while the chip leader has 20k+. Is it really a good move to let an aggressive short stack bully the table and become a threat?

I've noticed a LOT that when I wait for those good hands myself, until I reach the stage where it's push-bot time, that I often lose to multiple callers because I'm literally not a threat. Yeah, maybe I'm waiting too long. But often times I had no chance to push earlier because someone else pushed ahead of me or an aggressive medium or big stack blocked me by making bets that forestalled a move. I guess it's just been my observation that an aggressive big stack makes it harder to win than a more passive, protective one.

Of course, it occurs to me we may be talking apples and oranges here when it comes to what constitutes aggressive. I would consider it aggressive if I have 2,100 and the big stack with 24,000 raises a standard 3xBB to 1,200. If I'm the big stack, that's a small bet, not at all unreasonable. As the short stack, though, that bet is huge.

Believe me, I'm not trying to start an argument or dispute anyone's math. Hell, I was so ignorant when I started playing HE I thought KT was a strong hand. The 2+2 books did a lot to open my eyes and I appreciate it.

Maybe I was (and still am a terrible player), but the PTF has certainly helped advance my game to where at least I'm a little bit of a threat now.

Brann

[George Rice]

The range of hands you would think about calling with is dependent on the range of hands the player was pushing with. If your hand was better than the vast majority of hands the bettor would push with, then of course you would consider calling, depending on other circumstances (players left to act and the vulnerability of your hand should they get involved, etc.). Whether ATs, AJ, KQs or less is among those calling hands depends on this. The issue of chips gaining/losing value affects the range of hands you can call with. If your chips are losing value the larger the stack, the smaller your range of calling hands, as you wouldn't want to get in a lot of coin-flip situations (because the EV you're risking is more than the EV you'll gain).

This applies no matter who is doing the betting. If it was a desperate short stack, then your range of calling hands would be larger than if it was a less desperate larger, but still small, stack.

[BigAlK]

Hi Mason,

[ QUOTE ]
You would never know it from reading Snyder's articles that I recommended his book and agree with most of the strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for pointing this out again Mason. I think it's important for those coming to this discussion late to realize this and those who have been watching or participating from the beginning to be reminded from time to time. The points of contention over strategy are few and mostly about the reason why a specific move is right, not whether or not it is the right move. (Of course the why still matters because understanding the rationale leads you to better decisions in borderline situations.)

[ QUOTE ]
But I did say that some of his premises are wrong. For example, tournament speed doesn't enhance the value of position. No limit hold 'em enhances the value of position, especially against weak players which are very common to the small buy-in local Las Vegas tournaments that Snyder's book addresses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe this is nitpicking, but I didn't get that out of the book (that tournament speed enhances the value of position). However, it did lead me to a vastly improved understanding of the value of position and how position can be used to your advantage, regardless of tournament speed. I agree that you and Snyder are at odds over whether tournament speed should impact your strategy.

Best wishes,

Al

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The whole valuation of chips matter is a non-issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be. It remains an issue because Snyder hanged his hat on it for the basis of his theory. He’s been proved wrong and refuses to admit this. So he’s the one keeping it an issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

George,

You're right that Snyder disagreed with S&M on the proper way to attach a theoretical monetary value on tournament chips and proposed his "value of zero chips" model as an alternative. In my mind this has not been "disproven" although I'll concede that I might have missed something. However even Snyder in his article says that while he believes that the theoretical monetary value of every chip is the same for everyone at any point in the tournament (based on an equal skill assumption) that this really shouldn't impact your strategy, summing it up in this paragraph.

[ QUOTE ]
It remains my primary contention that tournaments are never “equal skill” events, even at a final table. Even if a tournament has become a coin-flip-with-a-prayer for the shortest stack(s) at the table, players with bigger chip stacks can almost always still play their hands more selectively, giving them a skill advantage. And tournament strategies based on the dollar value of the chips in play, as opposed to their value as ammunition, can only lead to poor results.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Snyder’s articles. He’s clearly wrong when he claimed utility value in his heads-up equal skill example, which I proved.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't sure Snyder had actually made this claim, but after a careful re-reading of all 3 articles I can see that he did (at least some of that contained in the paragraph I quoted above). I'll need to go back and review your prior comments.


[ QUOTE ]
And here’s an example of something Snyder wrote in his third article, which troubles me....

[/ QUOTE ]

I interpreted most of what Sklansky said the same way as Snyder (and in some cases had the same reaction as Snyder). For example I interpreted "shorter stack" to mean "short stack." But in reading your comments I can see that I might have misinterpreted the meaning and understand your concerns on this point.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Impact of Tournament Speed on Strategy

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason has addressed this already. And similar to the re-buy issue, there’s disagreement on what S&M, or in this case Harrington, recommend. My impression is that the two strategies are similar in Mason’s opinion, and that he had issues with how Snyder is arriving at his recommendations. I haven’t read Snyder’s book, and don’t have Harrington’s advice memorized, and cannot comment myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on my memory you're correct that Mason contends (and I agree) the two strategies will be similiar much of the time. However there is additional advice in The Poker Tournament Formula that is more aggressive than anything Harrington recommends. These differences would come into play near the beginning of a fast tournament when Harrington's advice would have you waiting while Snyder's would have you agressively attempting to gather chips in what Harrington would consider marginal, high risk situations. Snyder believes that tournament speed should influence strategic decisions. Mason has stated multiple times that he doesn't believe tournament speed has any impact on optimal strategy.

Al

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
The points of contention over strategy are few and mostly about the reason why a specific move is right, not whether or not it is the right move. (Of course the why still matters because understanding the rationale leads you to better decisions in borderline situations.)


[/ QUOTE ]

It will also stop you from making significant errors in other situations such as late in the tournament when moving up a place or two can be of much value, and very early in a tournament when everyone's chip stacks are of the high M variety.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe this is nitpicking, but I didn't get that out of the book (that tournament speed enhances the value of position). However, it did lead me to a vastly improved understanding of the value of position and how position can be used to your advantage, regardless of tournament speed. I agree that you and Snyder are at odds over whether tournament speed should impact your strategy.


[/ QUOTE ]

There's no discussion in Synder's book about how position is far more important in no limit than in other games.

Another example, on his site there is discussion of how David got the gap concept wrong. But again if you look at the recommendations in No Limit Hold 'em: Theory and Practice you will see that in late position a skilled player can call raises with many more hands than that same player would raise with if he was the one in early position.

The way the gap concept comes into play against typical players is that the number of hands which you can call those raises from late position in a tournament should be less than the number of hands you can call with in a standard ring game since they will play tighter in the tournament. But it can still be a fair number of hands, especially if you're against poor players.

Also notice that against skilled tournament players who are well aware that this happens, the reverse might be true when they raise. That is they begin to raise with more hands than they would in a standard ring game. Snyder attributes this to chip utility, something he never mentions in his book but which only came up because I pointed out his chip analysis was wrong (in his book). But it is really skilled players correctly using the gap concept as it applies to tournaments.

Again, if Snyder had his premises right, these points would have been explained differently in his book and would stop you from that occasional error.

Again from page 223 of Gambling Theory and Other Topics in case you didn't see it:

[ QUOTE ]
What tournament speed does do is restrict the effects of skill on tournament results. This is because, as discussed in Parts Two and Three of this book, the standard deviation is inversely proportional to the square root of the sample size. That is, in tournaments — especially “fast-action” tournaments — the skill difference between players is minimized.

[/ QUOTE ]

In one of Snyder's articles he writes:

[ QUOTE ]
Much of the advice in The Poker Tournament Formula was written specifically to address errors in the existing poker tournament literature, especially a number of serious errors put forward over roughly a twenty-year period by Mason Malmuth and David Sklansky.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now don't you think if that was the case he would have addressed this particular issue? It's my contention, despite what he says, that he had no awareness that this topic was addressed in my book almost twenty years ago.

As I said before, this would be mildly entertaining if it wasn't so sad.

MM

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
However there is additional advice in The Poker Tournament Formula that is more aggressive than anything Harrington recommends. These differences would come into play near the beginning of a fast tournament when Harrington's advice would have you waiting while Snyder's would have you agressively attempting to gather chips in what Harrington would consider marginal, high risk situations. Snyder believes that tournament speed should influence strategic decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Harrington: Volume I Dan and Bill Robertie give specific starting hand advice on pages 37-45. I suspect if you were to go over them, you would see that this is another example of Snyder mischaracterizing what our company is publishing.

MM