The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
Much of the problem has to do with the idea that fast tournaments require a different strategy from slow tournaments. (Fast and slow here refers to how quickly the blinds and antes go up.) This is the same mistake that Tom McEvoy made in his original tournament book over twenty years ago. Tournament speed has virtually nothing to do with correct tournament strategy.

As Harrington and Robertie show in Harrington II: The Endgame it's not speed that counts, but your overall chip position relative to the cost of playing each round. This is what they call "M" and when your M gets low, you have to begin making very aggressive plays. But when your M is fairly large, you have the option to play fairly normally.

What's happening in the Poker Tournament Formula is that some of the recommended plays turn out to be right not because of tournament speed, but because you'll be playing with a small M. So very weak players who read this, should improve their tournament games, but they'll do so for the wrong reasons.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't help but wonder if this is not mere symantics.

Snyder acknowldeges HOH II and points out that these quick paced tournaments are esssentially games with constant inflection points (I think that's the way he puts it). I read that part briefly today as I was trapped in a Books-A-Million as tornado warnings and 50 mph winds were prevelent and we were 'ordered' to go to a certain area...not a very condusive atmosphere for remembering.

I don't want to try and defend the point as there was considerable confusion in the store (and I think in terms of 'M' anyway) but I could not really discern a difference between decreasing M's and the 'pace of a tournament' when it comes to these tourneys where the blinds increase so quickly...but from what I read I certainly could not dismiss the idea as you have. I mean, even those with a relatively large M have to play a bit differently because the blinds are increasing at an increasing rate or the blinds will eat into them while others grow their stacks having adjusted their play because of the accelerated blinds...perhaps that is all that is meant by a 'different strategy' or different approach than would be the case in a slower tournament?

---Leavenfish

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Fish:

I've only read about 130 pages and haven't come to anything like you have described.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Arnold_Snyder]

Harrington II, to vastly oversimplify, is a discussion of optimal tournament strategies in which periods of solid, aggressive poker play are interspersed with heightened opportunities for theft, which exist primarily due to tournament structure.

My book shows that poker tournament structure factors can radically dislocate both these opportunities for theft, and the necessity of theft (as opposed to good poker play) in your overall results. As Leavenfish pointed out above, the blind structure is one aspect of tournament structure that impacts optimal tournament strategy. But there are other important aspects of tournament structures that also impact optimal strategies, including rebuy structures and, especially, field size.

Harrington’s M (and Sklansky’s “System” in Tournament Poker for Advanced Players), both address the need to change speed of play when the costs of a round reach a certain relation to your stack and the average stack in the tournament. My book expands on Harrington’s and Sklansky’s insights to consider tournaments with structures where the M is moving so fast that it is distorted almost beyond recognition.

Also, my book provides a simple method for quantifying any tournament’s speed based on its blind structure. Many fast tournaments are so fast they have little if any value for skillful players, regardless of the players’ understanding of poker or tournament strategies. Good players should choose tournaments based on their profit potential, and the buy-in cost and prize pool are not good indicators of value. The blind structure is the key.

A number of perceptive players in this thread realized during a quick look at the Formula in a bookstore that the Rock/Paper/Scissors strategy presented in it is very different from the solid, aggressive poker tournament strategies they have learned at 2+2. That’s quite right, and the reason for that is important. In fast tournaments, you are faced with a gambling problem that is impossible to solve with good poker play. The Rock/Paper/Scissors model simply identifies the power relationships that are conducive to solving a non-poker gambling problem. Essentially, The Poker Tournament Formula is an advanced course in theft.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Arnold:

Reading has been slow for me due to some other publishing distractions. But I am now about ready to start "The Chip Strategy."

But I have quickly thumbed through it and perhaps I have this wrong, but it seems to me that this material actually displaces what you have written early in the book.

Again, tournament speed has virtually nothing to do with your strategy. The reason it seems to be right is that in the tournaments you address your M and other player's M will frequently be low. Thus the aggressive plays that you recommend are frequently right.

Also, some of the plays you recommend, such as the example on page 68, seem like suicide to me and advice like this is what we refer to as being results oriented.

Specifically auto-calling a raiser on the button regardless of your hand can only be right against someone who is extremely weak tight. It also becomes more correct if your M is very large. For example, if you have let's say an M of 7, you're on the button with a hand like queen-five offsuit, and someone raises from a position and chip position which probably means a pretty good hand, this call is just plain foolish.

To be fair, I have a lot more to read, and I suspect that my opinion of the text will improve as I read more.

I also want to address this:

[ QUOTE ]
Many fast tournaments are so fast they have little if any value for skillful players, regardless of the players’ understanding of poker or tournament strategies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this statement, but again it's not for the reason you give. It's because everyone will always be playing with a small M and be forced to quickly put it all in. If the levels were moving up quickly, but you got to start with a very large amount of chips meaning that your M was very large, you wouldn't play as you advise and this statement would no longer be true.

One of the complaints about the World Poker Tour Tournaments is that because of the very large blinds it becomes a crap shoot towards the end and especially at the final table. That's because player's M's become small and much of the skill goes away. But there is certainly a lot of skill in these tournaments again because the Ms start very large and stay that way for most players for a fairly long time.

Best wishes,
Mason

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
My book expands on Harrington’s and Sklansky’s insights to consider tournaments with structures where the M is moving so fast that it is distorted almost beyond recognition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had decided to actually get a sign-on and make my first post to the forums on this thread after several months of lurking. Turns out the author has already summed things up himself. Harrington talks about the situation where you know the blinds are going to be raised within a short time by using the new blind level to compute your M. Snyder's book suggests additional tools to use in extreme cases. I wish I had read the book before one tournament I played in recently. I started in the cutoff seat and the 10 minute blinds had hit the 2nd level before I had even gone thru the blinds the first time. In the MTT forum they talk about accumulating chips early. In tournaments with fast structures you don't have the luxury of waiting for premium starting hands to do that.

My only quibble with the book is that in the chapter on negotiating prize money chops at the final table Snyder seems to be advocating giving up more value than seems optimal, especially for the chipleader.

[Worldclass]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Arnold:

Reading has been slow for me due to some other publishing distractions. But I am now about ready to start "The Chip Strategy."

But I have quickly thumbed through it and perhaps I have this wrong, but it seems to me that this material actually displaces what you have written early in the book.

Again, tournament speed has virtually nothing to do with your strategy. The reason it seems to be right is that in the tournaments you address your M and other player's M will frequently be low. Thus the aggressive plays that you recommend are frequently right.

Also, some of the plays you recommend, such as the example on page 68, seem like suicide to me and advice like this is what we refer to as being results oriented.

Specifically auto-calling a raiser on the button regardless of your hand can only be right against someone who is extremely weak tight. It also becomes more correct if your M is very large. For example, if you have let's say an M of 7, you're on the button with a hand like queen-five offsuit, and someone raises from a position and chip position which probably means a pretty good hand, this call is just plain foolish.

To be fair, I have a lot more to read, and I suspect that my opinion of the text will improve as I read more.

I also want to address this:

[ QUOTE ]
Many fast tournaments are so fast they have little if any value for skillful players, regardless of the players’ understanding of poker or tournament strategies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this statement, but again it's not for the reason you give. It's because everyone will always be playing with a small M and be forced to quickly put it all in. If the levels were moving up quickly, but you got to start with a very large amount of chips meaning that your M was very large, you wouldn't play as you advise and this statement would no longer be true.

One of the complaints about the World Poker Tour Tournaments is that because of the very large blinds it becomes a crap shoot towards the end and especially at the final table. That's because player's M's become small and much of the skill goes away. But there is certainly a lot of skill in these tournaments again because the Ms start very large and stay that way for most players for a fairly long time.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason:

To say that Tournament speed has virtually nothing to do with Tournament strategy is nonsense. If you don't adjust for the structure of a particular tournament you will be behind the players that understand the changes that need to be made. Having played thousands of "fast tournaments" in my career, I can verify that Arnold's understanding of these fundamentals are dead on.

As far as M goes: M measures your current chip status in relation to the current pot. M dicates how you play a particular hand in a specific zone. In fast tournaments, players usually start out with enough chips that M isn't a factor right away. What Arnold is suggesting, is a strategy that will allow a player to stay ahead of the blinds & not be forced into these low M situations. I think that is the point that you are missing.

[jackaaron]

It seems that Mason and Snyder are saying the same thing in different ways.

Is it possible that Mason is thinking in terms of live, larger buy in tournaments where players actually feel that they have a stake in the tournament, and Snyder is talking about smaller buy in tournaments online! with $200.00 or less buy ins? There's no denying how fast the tournaments are online, especially compared to live play. The speed of the tournament does actually cause you to play differently. For example, I realize that if I don't get a few premium hands in the first 20 minutes of a turbo MTT on Stars, I'll be in huge trouble vs. if I was playing a live event with 90 minute blinds starting at 25 25, and 10k chips.

[jackaaron]

Also, I wasn't sure about this....

The cards in cards vs. chips are much better cards than the cards in position vs. cards....correct?

Yet, I don't see a reason why they would be different. I would think everything would be pretty much constant as far as a concept goes.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
The speed of the tournament does actually cause you to play differently. For example, I realize that if I don't get a few premium hands in the first 20 minutes of a turbo MTT on Stars, I'll be in huge trouble vs. if I was playing a live event with 90 minute blinds starting at 25 25, and 10k chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly what I see as Snyder's point. You have to accumulate chips somehow. Using position to take down small pots when the premium cards don't come is one way to stay ahead of the blinds. Proper tournament strategy when deep stacked with long blind levels is normally considered to be waiting for premium hands. In fast tournaments you may not see a premium hand before you're blinded out or forced into an all-in with a less than premium hand due to having a low M.

[Arnold_Snyder]

First, in my earlier post, I forgot to thank Mason for inviting me to participate in this discussion.

Second, I think BigA/K is right about his point on the prize money chop. In my rebuy chapter, I go to great lengths to discuss the value of extra chips, even in a coin flip, where obviously luck rules. So, even though most fast tournaments are reduced to luck fests by the end, when a chop occurs, BigA/K is right that I did not give sufficient consideration to the value of chips. His point is a money-maker and I thank him for it. My advice would make sense for a player on a tight bankroll who was very concerned with avoiding fluctuations, but for most players who are in tournaments that they can well afford, my chopping advice is too conservative.

For anyone who might be struggling with BigA/K’s and Worldclass’s points, versus Mason’s concerns, I wanted to give any players in doubt more of a handle on why optimal tournament strategy is based on various aspects of tournament structure (or speed). I think a good way to do that is to return to the football game Harrington uses in explaining M and his zone system (p 124, HOHII), where the coach starts out with a lot of time and the full range of his plays and strategies available to him. Harrington explains that, as the clock winds down, and especially if the score is close or his team is behind, many of his strategic options are no longer viable. The coach cannot launch an attack of short runs because he doesn’t have the time luxury any more.

In football, there is a fixed game structure, so there is no such thing as a “fast” game structure. But imagine what would happen if a coach assumed he was playing the normal football game structure, only to find out 7 or 8 minutes into the game that there was only going to be one quarter. If the opposing team had gotten ahead of his team by a single touchdown in those first 7 or 8 minutes, his team would now be on the ropes. Overall, the coach would likely regret much time wasted up to this point on a running game.

A player in a fast tournament whose M is in Harrington’s green zone at the start, and who plays according to slow tournament green zone strategies, will similarly find himself suddenly out of time, just as if he were in a football game that he suddenly discovered had only one quarter of play.

Let me show how this relates to a real life fast tournament.

Every Friday night the Orleans has a single rebuy tournament with a $60 buy-in for $500 in chips, $5 more for $125 in dealer bonus chips, and $40 for $1000 in rebuy chips. You can make the rebuy any time in the first hour regardless of the size of your chip stack. Obviously, with the rebuy chips costing 50% less than the initial buy-in for double the amount of chips, any intelligent player will make the rebuy. This is essentially a $105 tourney where players start with $1625 in chips.

Here’s the early blind structure: Level 1: $10-$15; Level 2: $10-$20; Level 3: $15-$30; Level 4: $20-$40; Level 5: $30-$60.

With $1625 in starting chips, and the big blind starting at $15, we start out with a stack equal to just over 108 big blinds. In terms of M, we’re starting at 65 M, very solidly in Harrington’s green zone. This is common in the fast tournaments I recommend. The Orleans Saturday night tourney, another excellent fast format, also starts with an M of 65. Both of these Orleans tourneys rate as “Skill level 4” tournaments in my book, and those I recommend most highly for my strategies are those with Skill Levels 3 and 4. If you haven’t read my book, then this will make no sense, but suffice it to say that I use a method of quantifying tournaments’ speed based on the blind structures, and I advise against playing in those tournaments that are too fast (Skill Levels 0, 1, and 2—because the M starts out too low), and I most highly recommend those that start with a higher M. In my book, I do not use the term “M,” but if you look at my recommendations and follow the math, you will see that the best tournaments for fast play have relatively gentle blind structures and start with a high M, their only drawback being the fast blind levels.

During the first hour, in this Friday night Orleans tourney, the blind levels will go up every 15 minutes. At the end of one hour, we will be entering blind level 5. Consider what would happen to our chip stack if we did not play a hand during the first hour. Assuming we have gone through the blinds three times, or about once every 20 minutes, we will have lost only about $125 paying the blinds, reducing our starting chip stack to $1500.

But what has happened to our M in this hour? With $1500 in chips, and the blinds now at $30-$60, our M—just from paying the blinds three times, never getting involved in a hand—has gone down from a healthy green 65 to 16.67, well into the yellow zone. Furthermore, if we go through the blinds just one more time at their new level, our M will immediately drop to less than 10, into the orange zone.

And, when you hit the orange zone, you will unfortunately be hitting it exactly at the same time that the majority of other players in the tournament begin to realize they’re in trouble. At the same time as you start speeding up your strategy (loosening your playing and calling requirements), they will be speeding up their strategy, and you will be forced into confrontations in which lucky cards rule.

Contrary to slow tournament theory, where there really is an optional “survival” period and there is an understandable logic to not risking involvement when your (and everyone else’s) M is high, in fast tournaments the single best time to take risks is during this stage of the tournament when all of your opponents are primarily concerned with survival. With a high M, you can afford the risks. If someone plays back at you, you usually know they have a good hand (unless it happens to be a player like me or Worldclass or BigA/K), and you can get out of the way cheaply if necessary. This is the easiest time to read players’ hands.

Regarding Mason’s concern about my “suicidal” basic strategy advice to call a standard raise from the button with any two cards, note that my book specifies (p 158) that this strategy is not advised if you only have 30 big blinds or less in your stack. With more than 30 big blinds, I’ve found this play to be very profitable. There are so many players in fast tournaments who give up the lead in betting if the flop does not hit them, or looks scary to them, or who can be driven out with a raise during their green zone period when they are not desperate for chips, that I have found this to be one of the most profitable steals to make. And, note that I say that every play, including those I consider to be basic strategy plays, should be adjusted for the actual opponent you are facing.

In a slower tournament, you have more time to wait for premium hands and situations if you choose to. Let’s assume the same $1625 in starting chips, and the exact same Orleans blind structure, but with 60-minute levels. Our assumption here is again that we will go through the blinds every 20 minutes. With this structure, our M again starts at 65, and if we sit for an hour without playing a hand, our M will have gone down from 65 to about 52—still well within the green zone—and if we sit for another 20 minutes without playing a hand, going through the blinds once more, our M would still be at about 51, still nowhere near the yellow zone, let alone the orange zone.

If you enter that Orleans Friday or Saturday night tournament feeling like you can sit back and wait for premium hands because you’ve got an M of 65, you’re like a coach assuming he’s got a full 60 minutes to play his running game. In reality, you don’t have time for that running game. You have to go with the passing game. If you start out waiting for premium hands in a fast tournament, the vast majority of the time you will not get the cards you need to make the money you need to keep up with the rising blinds, and you will be at the mercy of luck within the first 60-90 minutes.

And, at any time during a fast tournament when your chip stack enters what Harrington calls his green zone due to winning a big pot or two, you are making a mistake if you revert to playing as conservatively as he advises for his green zone strategy. You can be more selective than the desperate stacks, but you can never give up your aggression. Those blinds and antes will just keep moving up too fast.

I don’t want you to think that I am refuting anything that Harrington says in his book. He does not address fast blind structures in HOHII. I’m saying that for the M formula to be accurate for any tournament, it would have to include modifiers for blind structure and field size. (Your point, Mason, about the speed of play in the later stages of the WPT tournaments, is due to the increased field sizes we’re seeing these days. A few years back, when these tournaments had much smaller fields, their blind structures did not make the final tables such a crapshoot.)

To sum it up, to play according to M without an adjustment for tournament speed will put you in the position of a coach playing according to a normal football game structure when in fact he only has one quarter to win. Plays that would be suicidal in a slow format are simple basic strategy plays in a fast format. And, some of the easiest players to exploit with fast play are those who are playing as if the overall tournament speed didn’t matter.