The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[1p0kerboy]

Hi Mason Malmuth. You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that it is a very confused work. 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I have read MOST of this thread (not all) I have not read The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder. However, I have to slightly disagree with your position. Let me explain.

First let me point to Tournament Poker for Advanced Players by David Sklansky. In it he says:

[ QUOTE ]
But there is another rason to eschew close gambles early on...What I am speaking of involves the presumption that you are one of the best players in the tournament. That being the case, you should avoid close gambles, especially for large portions of your chips. It may seem that giving up a positive EV gamble can never be right. However, even from a purely mathematical standpoint, you sometimes should. (pp 19-20)

[/ QUOTE ]

He goes on to show an example of how passing up on a small edge today for a bigger edge tomorrow is a good idea. In an extremely slow paced tournament, the better player is very likely to find the bigger edge he was looking for. However, this is much less likely to happen in a faster paced tournament. Hence, it would probably be better for the player to not pass up on ANY +EV. As you can see, the strategy of this player has changed.

Sklansky also reiterates this point on page 64:

[ QUOTE ]
Remember earlier we showed mathematically that if tomorrow you have the opportunity to make a great bet for a certain fixed amount of money, you should pass up merely good bets today if losing them will keep you from making that great bet tomorrow

[/ QUOTE ]

I will agree that the adjustment in strategy is small and only beneficial if you are one of the best players, but it is still there nonetheless.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi 1p0kerboy:

Just thinking about your point quickly, I suspect that you may be right. Specifically, it might be right for very good players to gamble a little more in close situations in these type of quick tournaments if they can anticipate a large drop in their M in the near future because of an increase in stakes.

Thanks for making a good point.

Best wishes,
mason

[Vlorg]

[ QUOTE ]
No. Suppose your M will be cut in half in three hands. I agree that you may make an adjustment based on that. But what does that have to do with tournament speed. Three hands is three hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a key statement from Mason that I thought would end the argument. Obviously situations like this occur very frequently in fast tournaments.

Thinking about it more though I realized that in fast tournaments they do not just occur very frequently, they might occur on EVERY hand assuming that you need to make adjustments if your M will be cut in half in say 9 hands. I realize that this still doesn't mean that tournament speed is a consideration.

However, in a fast tournament you may very well find yourself in a situation where in the very next hand your M will be cut in half and in 11 hands or so your M will be cut again. If there is an adjustment that needs to be made for this 'overlap' in future M decreases then THIS is an adjustment that is found in fast tournaments and never in slow ones. Now tournament speed is a direct consideration or at least it is a method of taking this 'overlap' of future M decreases into consideration.

I always had a small problem with the definition of M given in HOH2. On page 125 it is defined as "the ratio of your stack to the current total of blinds and antes". On the very next page "What M tells you is the number of rounds of the table that you can survive before being blinded out". Both of these definitions/numbers are important but can be drastically different. In a very fast tournament your current starting M might be 40 but your stack might only last 4-5 rounds if you didn't play! This seems to be the key to adjusting play in fast tournaments. Again, I believe this is due to the 'overlapping' influence of future M decreases.

Vlorg

[jackaaron]

Lets say that proper play as a fully functional player in the green zone as outlined by Harrington is considered the correct way to play. Add to that, the blinds are going to increase rapidly and take us out of the green zone soon, why would we play incorrectly in order to avoid this?

Now, if we want to increase the amount of M you need in order to consider yourself in the green zone, thats one thing, but playing like we're in a zone or two lower while were still in the green zone seems illogical.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi 1p0kerboy:

Just thinking about your point quickly, I suspect that you may be right. Specifically, it might be right for very good players to gamble a little more in close situations in these type of quick tournaments if they can anticipate a large drop in their M in the near future because of an increase in stakes.

Thanks for making a good point.

Best wishes,
mason


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me state that other than this rare example I agree with everything you have stated in this thread. The author seems to be 'missing the point' with several of his statements.

1. Most importantly, making plays to attempt to run over the filed early on is mostly wrong in these kind of tournaments. The reason being is that the field is usually weak-passive, especially on the internet. These players don't have as much invested as a player in the bigger buy-ins. However, while finding certain stealing opportunities and exploiting them might be a little more rare, they certainly do exist.
2. He consistently refers to the tournament becoming a "crapshoot". While this portion of the tournament is very volitile, a good player certainly has a nice edge against a below average strength field. This is for several reasons. First, it is oftentimes not too difficult to get it all-in with a nice edge. Second, when you steal during this stage it is worth much more because the blinds and antes are much bigger. David Sklansky states in his book Tournament Poker for Advanced Players on page 39:

[ QUOTE ]
This book will not have a real lot to say about later round play. That might those of you who know that I believe most of a good player's profit comes in these later rounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, admittingly I have not read the book. I don't know if I'm even interested in reading it due to the fallacious concepts.

But kudos to the author for pointing out that as a skilled player you should at least seek tournaments which have a better structure as it increases your expectation. From what I understand, he even has a structure ratings system. I thought about making something like this a couple of years ago.

[Toonces]

[ QUOTE ]

However, in a fast tournament you may very well find yourself in a situation where in the very next hand your M will be cut in half and in 11 hands or so your M will be cut again. If there is an adjustment that needs to be made for this 'overlap' in future M decreases then THIS is an adjustment that is found in fast tournaments and never in slow ones. Now tournament speed is a direct consideration or at least it is a method of taking this 'overlap' of future M decreases into consideration.

I always had a small problem with the definition of M given in HOH2. On page 125 it is defined as "the ratio of your stack to the current total of blinds and antes". On the very next page "What M tells you is the number of rounds of the table that you can survive before being blinded out". Both of these definitions/numbers are important but can be drastically different. In a very fast tournament your current starting M might be 40 but your stack might only last 4-5 rounds if you didn't play! This seems to be the key to adjusting play in fast tournaments. Again, I believe this is due to the 'overlapping' influence of future M decreases.

Vlorg

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the point that I think Mason seems to be punting on over and over. If your M is 20 and Q is 1 in the WSOP, that is very different from playing at the starting bell of the Riviera tourney ($1500 stack; 25-50 blinds; 15 minute rounds) where your M starts at 20, but is scheduled to drop to 9 in 15 minutes and drop to 4 in 30 minutes (without a playable hand).

I'm not saying that Snyder's methods are certainly correct, but I can't see how it can legitimately be argued that the second scenario (when I know that I'm 20 hands away from dropping into the Red Zone) should be treated the same as the WSOP scenario despite the M and Q being the same in both scenarios.

Of course, the problem with accelerating your Red Zone play early in fast tournaments is that the blinds are still worth so little. Thus, I would guess that early strategy in those fast tournaments is how best to stack your opponents, not just steal their blinds.

[smbruin22]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, the problem with accelerating your Red Zone play early in fast tournaments is that the blinds are still worth so little. Thus, I would guess that early strategy in those fast tournaments is how best to stack your opponents, not just steal their blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

toones, very good comments..... in a fast tournament, you definitely have to look for some opportunities to build your stack, but you're correct that when the blinds are low, stealing them is somewhat pointless... gives some credence to getting involved in alot of flops cheaply. nice thing though about stealing blinds even when they're small is it may get some action for your better hands.

very interesting subject.

[Cactus Jack]

If you aren't aware of the structure, then you will not be able to play with any edge. Yes, blinds are low, but they ARE worth stealing, because you have such a low M to begin with.

Second, even with low blinds, the pot will be worth competing for. And at these low blind levels, it's the ONLY opportunity for a skilled player to play his post-flop edge.

Third, most 2+2 tournament players are far more skilled and experienced at pre-flop than post-flop, therefore they may see things differently.

Finally, Mr. Snyder is the first to address these issues. He's made a definite contribution and the book has a prominent place on my shelf--when not in my briefcase being re-reread.

CJ

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi 1p0kerboy:

Just thinking about your point quickly, I suspect that you may be right. Specifically, it might be right for very good players to gamble a little more in close situations in these type of quick tournaments if they can anticipate a large drop in their M in the near future because of an increase in stakes.

Thanks for making a good point.

Best wishes,
mason

[/ QUOTE ]

After reading the book (skipping the parts that 2+2 really has covered extensively) I thought this was the most profound point. That if you are a good player, you can exercise you entire ability later on if you have a big stack. However, you need to acquire a big stack to do so. That means being aggressive early.

As an aside, in my mind tournament speed is akin to hands per level. In fast tournaments you get fewer hands per level. In slow tournaments you get more hands per level. Essentially then, both "M" and hands per level should determine your play (this is of course ignoring other players at your table who should determine your play probably more so than anything else).

Here is an example of how hands per level can influence your play: If I have an M = 21 and am dealt AJo in EP, I would fold if I knew I had plenty of hands left in this blind level (say 50 minutes). However, if the blinds were soon increasing (say the level only lasts 10 minutes) I would be more tempted to play this hand as the increase in blinds next level will reduce my M.

Put another way: If you only get so many hands to choose from before you blind out (or get low enough that you can't play as well) you want to choose the best ones. In this case, AJo might be the best hand I'll see for a while, and most likely w/my M still in the green zone, so I am going to play it to try to keep my M there.

Shermn27

[smbruin22]

this book (along with HOH3) was delivered yesterday....

very torn on this book....

i think the whole quantification of skilled tournaments is great, even though some will argue it's obvious, the author has gone to quite a bit of trouble to gather info for alot of vegas, online and other location tourneys on his website (the book has some). i think that resource will be useful for alot of posters.

i think the book's emphasis on position and aggression is excellent... i think the biggest thing i've taken from it is "don't give up the lead" (i think with position, but i'm not totally sure). if you're sole opponent checks, don't start thinking he's slow-playing a monster, he probably doesn't like the flop.

regarding some of the more controversial things like calling normal-sized raises from the button with any two cards (no callers) seems sort of questionable to me too. i've never totally sure if arnold thinks you should do this often or occasionally (i'm sure it's cited in text but it's alot to wade thru and remember). occasionally i think it's o.k., and obviously have a read on opponent and where they are raising from.

i think the strategy necessitates that your opponents care greatly if they bust out.... doesn't seem like that's the case in online. and arnold suggests often hammering with a weak hand on the flop, turn and river thinking people may be more inclined to fold on river if all cards are out (i think). alot of calling stations out there though too (make the bet big enough)

one great point the book makes is that those harrington zones (can't remember the colours - red, yellow, orange, green???) assume alot longer blind levels than the great majority of us play. for all the experts in this forum, i seldom see this point and it's an excellent one to point out when people suggest harrington as key SNG material. arnold says you have to get very aggressive way earlier(i.e. higher M) than dan suggests (i think some think dan's dangerous zones are too high. oh well, lots of opinions)

anyhow, a very interesting read. i think you can learn alot from this book and a dissenting view is always valuable. like SSHE, i think it can be very easy to misapply alot of the stuff too though. i'll reserve final judgement until i'm finished (book has some very unique sections like rebuy tournaments, and the player classification section was interesting).....

anyone who's read (or wrote) the book, feel free to correct me on anything that i didn't portray accurately.