Theory Discussion of a Point From "Poker Tournament Formula"

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
A key concept explained in HoH is that there are cases where variance is good for you. Specifically, when in the "red zone" with an M less than 5 or so, you want to either get healthy or go broke. Festering at a low M accomplishes nothing and you will not likely survive long enough to get a big enough hand to have a big edge. Hence Harrington advocates getting all-in with almost any two when you can be first in while in the red zone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misrepresent low M play. You loosen up because you are seeking EV not variance. As your stack gets shorter the pot odds you are getting on an all in attempt to steal the blinds get better, which means that you can push with progressively weaker hands. A post I made a few years ago explains this Here is how I think you shoud do it

There are a couple of other second order modifications you might make.

The threat of having to make a really bad bet, all in in the big blind, increases the EV of all actions that reduce the chance of you making this bad bet. This effect causes you to play loser pre flop. This increase in EV totaled over all the reaming hands is largely independent on the number of reaming hands. Hence the effect for each individual hand rapidly decreases as the number of hands before you’re blinded off increase. At M=3 it can make a difference, at M>10 I believe it can be safely ignored.

In the small blind and late position, if you get knocked out you loose the chance of getting some free hands. The hands you have in effect paid for by posting the blinds. This reduces the EV of actions in these positions that can get you knocked out. Causing you to play tighter pre flop.

[ QUOTE ]
The question: PTF puts forward a similar concept, namely that in fast MTTs, early variance is good for you (although it's not stated quite that way).

[/ QUOTE ]

He seems to not only be saying this, but also that the good effect of early variance dominates all other effects that would temp you to reduce variance.

[ QUOTE ]
You want to get a big stack or get out. PTF says to get aggressive faster in fast tournaments regardless of M, presumably to get that variance. Is this correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two points here.

1) Is early variance in a tournament good for you?
2) Is early variance better for you in a fast tournament or a slow one?

The extent to which early variance is good for you or not is a very personal thing, depending critically on the value you place on your time and on how you play poker. If you get knocked out will you be able to use your time usefully or not.

As to whether early variance is better for you in a slow or fast tournament. I would say it’s more important in a slow tournament. I think a good player can more effectively use a big stack in a slow tournament than a fast one, and further getting knocked out of a slow tournament gets more time returned to you to use in other pursuits.


[ QUOTE ]
The Example: To accomplish this, PTF advocates plays such as preflop button calls during early levels with any two - a play that is clearly normally cash-game -EV. However, it is high variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

NLHT&P page194 Adjusting to weak tight games. Most tournament players are weak tight so this advice is particularly appropriate. Here DS&EM say against bad enough players you can play 100% of hands on the button, but to drop the worse trash if they have some clue.

Snyder advice would seem to be the same as DS&EM, but DS&EM say do it because its +EV Snyder says do it because you are after variance.

[ QUOTE ]
The positions: There are several positions one could take on what Snyder has to say. I've named the ones I think are of interest for ease of discussion:

[/ QUOTE ]

P1 and P3 would both appear to be correct.

Anyone who wants to gain an appreciation of Snyder’s understanding of tournament poker would be advised to check out his articles at blackjsck forum online

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
one thing i was never completely sure about was how you were supposed to integrate these systems. i remember "look at what weapons you have", but i didn't think that was clear enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
i wish people would stop citing that one strategic tip.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
say what you want, but PTF woke me up to aggressive small-ball play as much as any other book...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it IS intended to be a system, .... based on the book title...

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree with all quotes.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the problem should be restated. If, at the start of a tournament, you could flip a coin and either get an additional 1/3 of your chip stack or loose that amount, would it be +TEV to do so? I believe the answer is provably "no".

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, but I get the impression Snyder would say "it depends on how fast the tournament is." Or maybe not with respect to your specific numbers. I don't know.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the problem should be restated. If, at the start of a tournament, you could flip a coin and either get an additional 1/3 of your chip stack or loose that amount, would it be +TEV to do so? I believe the answer is provably "no".

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, but I get the impression Snyder would say "it depends on how fast the tournament is." Or maybe not with respect to your specific numbers. I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the actual numbers don't matter at all. If 1/3 doesn't float your boat, pick some other flip size (assuming you can cover the amount) and any number of flips you like.

The question is whether +CVAR is +TEV, or -TEV.

Except it's not really a question, as I'll get to in a minute.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
The extent to which early variance is good for you or not is a very personal thing, depending critically on the value you place on your time and on how you play poker. If you get knocked out will you be able to use your time usefully or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's true of course. But it's not a practical matter what Snyder addresses. I believe what he's saying is that it should not be a personal thing. (It would be like saying "having poker skill is a personal thing".) In fast tournaments, risking getting a big stack and then using it well is poker skill (vis a vis long term EV in fast tournaments.)

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]

Well that's true of course. But it's not a practical matter what Snyder addresses. I believe what he's saying is that it should not be a personal thing. (It would be like saying "having poker skill is a personal thing".) In fast tournaments, risking getting a big stack and then using it well is poker skill (vis a vis long term EV in fast tournaments.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Or poker un-skill as the case may be.

[alanbrown]

I think that one reason that moves might be -EV in a cash game but +EV in a tournament is because people can always reload in a cash game. So I think part of Snyder's POV is that there are many +EV situations that come about because of the increased FE of an AI in a tournament.

I believe a lot of what Snyder bases his theory on is FE and I'm a big fan of that theory. He talks about preying on the tighter players also but the largest part of his point is that you need to milk that FE for all it's worth.

I think in a lot of these discussions people presume (for the sake of the discussion) that they can accurately assess the range of their opponent and the way they'll play that range depending on your action. I think part of the reason why I agree with Snyder's principles is that people assume ranges that are too tight for villains and they assume villains will call looser than they actually will (villain will make bad decisions in actual fact because he'll misread your hand frequently). Therefore I believe Snyder's plan works primarily because of people underestimating FE and because they overestimate villains perceptions and skills.

I actually don't think Snyder advocates calling with 44, but he definitely advocates pushing with it in a wider set of circumstances than most would.

As for your point about variance. It's generally accepted that if your finishing position at SNGs were graphed they should make the shape of a smile. More 1's and 10's than any other number. That says to me that increased variance does indeed lead to increased tournament winnings.

[smbruin22]

one thought i've had...

in today's tournaments, do you not somewhat have to keep up with the LAG crazies (and other crazies)???

just think certain authors works are more consistent with the past times (which i wasn't a part of, so i can easily be wrong)...

i think lessinger has an article in current CP that you have to play a higher variance game to keep.. you should check it out.

i'm only throwing the idea out that alot of advice may come from older days where there weren't as many aggressive internet players around.... long tournaments i think it's somewhat o.k. as you have plenty of time to gain chips and bad LAG's have same for losing chips, but reasonably fast tournaments (starting M = 50, 20 minute levels B&M), i don't think that's true.

EDIT: since posting i thought someone would say, "yeah, that's what this thread is all about"... but i'm asking about keeping up with the maniacs which i don't think has been brought up much in the whole PTF debate. i see people with massive stacks after an hour and a half in 6-7 hour tournament. and if your stack is slightly bigger than you began with (which is a decent outcome), you're basically sunk... it's not winner take all, as mason and others point out, but you want to be top 3-4 out of 150-200. the rest is a waste of time, unless you're already there short-stacked.

[alanbrown]

I agree with you. The 'old' advice was to play the opposite way from the rest of the table, so if they were all tight to play loose, and if they were all loose to play tight. But that doesn't work well in a fast tournament situation. In that situation, the luckiest LAG wins. And the nits all pay.