The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

And therefore you adjust your strategy because your M is low. You don't adjust it because of tournament speed.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

If I understood Mr. Snyder correctly, then he meant that you should adjust your tournament strategy before your M is too low to take small risks.

You should be willing to take more risks trying to flop straights or flushes early in the tournament while paying for the flop only costs TC 20 instead of TC 600. This advice has to be seen in contrast with usual conservative poker of waiting for good hands while folding doesn't cost much.

It seems to me that this strategy is quite reasonable, because later in the tournament when the blinds are high you are basically playing top pair poker and it's tough to break someone for all his chips with just one pair unless he is desperate and then you can't win a lot of chips from him anyways.

The whole thing reminds me of a discussion with a friend who also advocated playing loose early, while I insisted to wait for premium hands. Our experience proved him right, because he usually doubled up twice before I had played a single hand.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
You should be willing to take more risks trying to flop straights or flushes early in the tournament while paying for the flop only costs TC 20 instead of TC 600. This advice has to be seen in contrast with usual conservative poker of waiting for good hands while folding doesn't cost much.

[/ QUOTE ]

I re-read the essay Mason referenced yesterday (from Essays #2). In it he suggests that playing what conventional wisdom would indicate was "too many hands" early in a tournament with hands that have the potential to make big hands that could get paid off big in order to build a stack at the start of the tournament was a good strategy. The reasons for this are all specific to tournaments. His point being that this is good tournament strategy regardless of tournament speed.

[jackaaron]

What about reading people's hands? Would it be true to say that the better you become at doing this, the less affect tournanment speed will have on you?

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
His point being that this is good tournament strategy regardless of tournament speed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, it might be good regardless of the speed, but if the speed is high, it seems to be essential. Seeing as many flops as possible as cheaply as possible in order to flop a monster is like running the river twice in cash games -> it should reduce variance.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, it might be good regardless of the speed, but if the speed is high, it seems to be essential. Seeing as many flops as possible as cheaply as possible in order to flop a monster is like running the river twice in cash games -> it should reduce variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it will actually increase variance, but potentially increase ROI. Mason's essay says that this style will cause you to bust out early more often. The idea is to give yourself a chance to "get lucky early." When it doesn't work you could easily find yourself knocked out. However when it does work you're able to play big stack poker which, when done right, will get you to the final table with a much better chance at finishing in the the big money.

I now get Mason's point that this can be a valid strategy even when deep stacked. Therefore the speed of the tournament isn't the reason why it can be right. However I agree with you that it is more essential with a faster tournament. In a slow tournament you've got the option of waiting for big hands, one way of getting lucky, or playing loosely early hoping to get lucky. Both of these approachs are used successfully by different people. In a fast tournament Snyder's point is that the tight early approach is much less likely to work because the odds of you getting lucky with good cards is less.

And of course there is more to the book than loose plays like calling on the button with virtually any 2. I need to re-read and ponder whether some of the plays might make sense in slower tournaments as well.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
What about reading people's hands? Would it be true to say that the better you become at doing this, the less affect tournanment speed will have on you?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the better you are at this the better you will do at poker. I don't see how tournament speed impacts this. However this ability does impact how well you'll do playing a looser style early regardless of tournament speed. When you play speculative hands that get hit by the flop, but not so hard as to be monsters (2 bottom pair, OESD, flush draw, etc) then hand and people reading skills will impact how successful you are in continuing or getting away from these hands (whichever turns out to be correct). A loose style gives you the chance to get lucky. However it can also give you a chance to spew chips. That's one reason why reason why a conservative style is recommended for beginners. (See the discussion of different styles in HOHI)

[Radar_O'Reilly]

In Arnold's 7/26/06 post at the top of page 6, he points out that using the fast strategy in his book in slow tournaments is a good idea. Specifically he says, "But you should always keep in mind, even in slow tournaments, that anyone who builds a significant early chip lead has a big advantage over anyone with a lesser stack who is playing with equal skill."

However, he makes the important point throughout his posts and book that fast play to build up a chip lead is not essential in a slow tournament, while it IS essential in a fast tournament. The reason fast play is not essential in a slow tournament, and why conservative strategy is a viable option in a slow tournament, is because in a slow event you can still be in the green zone--a fully functional poker player--even with a conservative strategy. As long as you are a fully functional poker player, you have the ability to outplay a bigger stack of lesser skill. If Harrington didn't have the ability to outplay big stacks of lesser skill, he wouldn't be the winning tournament player he is.

The point Piers misses is that, when you are short, you are no longer a fully functional poker player. You may prefer to play in the orange zone or red zone, but if you do it's because your poker skills are limited. If you prefer to play without access to a broad variety of poker skills, I would have to say that, as a poker player, you simply aren't very good. Orange zone and red zone play is almost exclusively about hand selection, and since Harrington, Snyder and every other poker author in the world pretty much agree on what you have to do when you're short, you can sit there and play a formula. But there's no way you have an edge over a truly skilled and fully functional poker player when your skills are so limited.

Mason and Piers keep reiterating an assertion that tournament speed has no effect on strategy choices. But the minute a conservative style is a viable option with one structure, and not a viable option with a different tournament structure, their assertion is wrong. Arnold has provided a mathematical basis for his assertion that speed affects optimal strategy, and Mason and Piers have not shown that this math is wrong. Specifically, what Arnold is saying is that while you can use either conservative or fast strategy in a slow event, fast tournament structures require that you abandon conservative strategies in order to stay in the green zone. If this is true, then tournament structure affects optimal strategy. When you are forced to adopt a different strategy for a fast tournament than you would have used in a slow tournament, tournament structure has affected strategy.

In order for Mason and Piers to show that Arnold's argument is invalid, they have to show that one of the following items is mathematically wrong:

1. They have to show mathematically that fast play will not more frequently keep you in the green zone in fast tournaments than conservative play.

OR

2. They have to show that Arnold's math is wrong in Chapter 10 of The Poker Tournament Formula, where he shows the mathematical basis of the edge a big chip stack has over a small chip stack in a tournament.

OR

3. They have to show that you are not limited in your skill options when you sink below the green zone.

Essentially, Piers is trying to make point #3. He says: "If someone has more chips than you they, have a bigger equity in the tournament than you. You can overtake him if you get sufficiently lucky, or he gets sufficiently unlucky, skill can be used to bias the luck factor slightly."

But this is mathematically unsound reasoning. In the long run, two opponents of equal skill will have equal luck. Relying on luck to get you out of jams when someone has an edge over you is unsound professional gambling. It would be the equivalent of a card counter placing a big bet when he doesn't have the edge, and just hoping he wins this time. It is true that he will often win when he bets at a disadvantage, but he will not win often enough to make him a winner overall.

Professional gambling is not about winning on any particular hand, or even any particular tournament. It's about having a mathematical edge over your opponent overall.

Piers admits to having a problem with knowing what to do with a big stack--essentially he is admitting he lacks a broad range of skills. He says: "I remember my first big stack tournament, about a year after I learnt poker I entered a big tournament, and found myself with around 10,000 chips with 25-25 blinds. Before this I hand only played a few short-stacked tournaments and online limit. I realised I did not have a clue how to handle such a big stack. I employed the tactic of folding until my stack got short enough that I thought knew what I was doing. Finished about on the bubble, what I deserved I guess."

What he is doing is relying on luck to overcome his lack of skill. He says: "I also believe you are downgrading luck far too much. Luck is far more important in determining success in a specific tournament than skill. The usual way to overcome a large chip disadvantage is to get very lucky."

I have to tell you, this is absurd. A long run advantage is based on playing with an advantage. You play with the biggest advantage if you are a fully functional poker player--that is, in the green zone--and in order to stay in the green zone in fast tournaments, you have to choose a strategy that will keep you there. Since in a fast tournament you can't play conservative strategy and stay in the green zone, tournament speed indisputably alters strategy options.

[Radar_O'Reilly]

[ QUOTE ]
Orange zone and red zone play is almost exclusively about hand selection, and since Harrington, Snyder and every other poker author in the world pretty much agree on what you have to do when you're short, you can sit there and play a formula.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to make a correction to this. I should have said: Orange and red zone play is almost exclusively about hand selection and shot-taking.

[Arnold_Snyder]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, it might be good regardless of the speed, but if the speed is high, it seems to be essential.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Shandrax. That is the point.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it will actually increase variance, but potentially increase ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also true, BigA/K. This is a high risk strategy, but it pays off.

[ QUOTE ]
I now get Mason's point that this can be a valid strategy even when deep stacked. Therefore the speed of the tournament isn't the reason why it can be right. However I agree with you that it is more essential with a faster tournament. In a slow tournament you've got the option of waiting for big hands, one way of getting lucky, or playing loosely early hoping to get lucky. Both of these approachs are used successfully by different people. In a fast tournament Snyder's point is that the tight early approach is much less likely to work because the odds of you getting lucky with good cards is less.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

One other point: I do not believe for one instant that Dan Harrington has told us all of his secrets, nor will he ever tell us all that he knows. I don't remember where I read the quote from T.J. Cloutier, but I recall that when a player commented to him that based on the strategies he published in his books, he assumed Cloutier to be a very tight player, Cloutier said something like, "Are you kidding? I've got more moves than a mongoose."

There is no way Harrington is kicking butt in as many tournaments as he does without being a lot more of a mongoose than we'll ever know about. One major point I make in my book is that no player who "plays by the book" (and by that I mean any book, mine or anyone else's) will ever have great success. Get what you can from books, but figure out your own moves.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
One other point: I do not believe for one instant that Dan Harrington has told us all of his secrets, nor will he ever tell us all that he knows.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't remember where I read the quote from T.J. Cloutier, but I recall that when a player commented to him that based on the strategies he published in his books, he assumed Cloutier to be a very tight player, Cloutier said something like, "Are you kidding? I've got more moves than a mongoose."


[/ QUOTE ]

The Cloutier books are very poorly done and certainly don't reflect how he plays.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way Harrington is kicking butt in as many tournaments as he does without being a lot more of a mongoose than we'll ever know about.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I read statements like this I wonder if you have even read the Harrington books. This is from page 158 of Harrington II.

[ QUOTE ]
In Volume I a lot of time was spent discussing the three main playing styles in no-limit hold ’em: conservative, aggressive, and super-aggressive. I described the kinds of starting hands that each style requires and the problems that players of different styles typically encounter after the flop.

At this point, you might well wonder how players of each style approach the problems of the endgame. The answer is surprising to many people: No matter which style you naturally play, your approach to endgame problems will be very similar. The rising blinds and your shrinking stack size will force you to play in a super-aggressive way.

[/ QUOTE ]

MM