The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[jackaaron]

Seriously? Have you read this? I'm still laughing at some of the things said in this book.

I'm not going to trash this book (any more), but SO many things in it are so far from conventional 2+2 wisdom that I was just wondering if anyone read it, and had opinions.

Rock, paper, scissors anyone?

[Grumbo]

Is this book even out yet? Amaazon has a paperback version comingo ut on Aug. 1st. Has there been a hardback version released? Doesn't look too interersting given that it's geared towards small buy-in tournaments.

[jackaaron]

Yeah, I read quite a bit yesterday at Barnes & Nobles.

Any book for low limits I would be interested in as I don't play 215.00 tournaments, and above.

Still, the advice is just so different than norm. I was hoping someone caught some of it. He's really big on feeling that Hold 'Em is a complex version of Rock, Paper, Scissors. Rock = chips. Paper = Cards. Scissors = Position.

So, he's saying:
Chips beat Position
Cards beat Chips
Position beats Cards

My thought is...oftentimes you have two of those three against your opponents, or they have two of those three against you. If I'm the CL on the button, it's folded around to me, and you're a less than average stack in the BB, and I have AA, then I suppose I have all 3. Still, you CAN fold to my raise. And, when he's talking about position beating cards, he's also talking about being able to minimize your loses better in position as opposed to OOP I suppose.

[Grumbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I read quite a bit yesterday at Barnes & Nobles.

Any book for low limits I would be interested in as I don't play 215.00 tournaments, and above.

Still, the advice is just so different than norm. I was hoping someone caught some of it. He's really big on feeling that Hold 'Em is a complex version of Rock, Paper, Scissors. Rock = chips. Paper = Cards. Scissors = Position.

So, he's saying:
Chips beat Position
Cards beat Chips
Position beats Cards

My thought is...oftentimes you have two of those three against your opponents, or they have two of those three against you. If I'm the CL on the button, it's folded around to me, and you're a less than average stack in the BB, and I have AA, then I suppose I have all 3. Still, you CAN fold to my raise. And, when he's talking about position beating cards, he's also talking about being able to minimize your loses better in position as opposed to OOP I suppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's his explanation for chips beating position? Is this for preflop or postflop play? It seems like this would apply in limited situations where you are considering bluffs after the flop.

[jackaaron]

At this point, I'm unsure why. As I said, I was reading through it at B&N, and although some points held my interest, the Rock Paper Scissors part pretty much made me put the book back on the shelf.

I might try to give the book a second chance late this week. I try not to totally discount anyone's point of view when it comes to poker discussion (key words: try not to).

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Jack:

I've been reading the book. In fact, Anold, who I consider a friend, gave me a copy.

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.

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.

There are also many other questionable plays such as automatically calling a raise with any two cards if you're on the button so that you can steal later (and by making this play you lose what Harrington and Robertie refer to as "First in Vigorish"). With a large M this play is more likely correct, especially against a weak player, but with a small M, which again will frequently be the case in the type of tournament the book is aimed for, it can't be right.

For those who don't know, Snyder is one of the foremost authorities in blackjack/gambling, and I have told him on many occasions that we would be more than glad to publish any book that he writes. But this text at the very least certainly needs a lot of work. (Also, I've only read about one-third of it.)

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Jack:

[ QUOTE ]
Chips beat Position


[/ QUOTE ]

It's more like lack of chips beat position. This is easy to see. When you're all-in and get called, position doesn't matter anymore.

Best wishes,
Mason

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Jack:

I've been reading the book. In fact, Anold, who I consider a friend, gave me a copy.

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.

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.

There are also many other questionable plays such as automatically calling a raise with any two cards if you're on the button so that you can steal later (and by making this play you lose what Harrington and Robertie refer to as "First in Vigorish"). With a large M this play is more likely correct, especially against a weak player, but with a small M, which again will frequently be the case in the type of tournament the book is aimed for, it can't be right.

For those who don't know, Snyder is one of the foremost authorities in blackjack/gambling, and I have told him on many occasions that we would be more than glad to publish any book that he writes. But this text at the very least certainly needs a lot of work. (Also, I've only read about one-third of it.)

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Will there be a review of this book? It would seem this review would take a great deal of your time with the size of the book, and the need to address certain problems 2+2 would have with some of the concepts.

One thing I do like is that someone is trying to write a tournament book for low limit players (the lot that seems to comprise most of the online scene, and of course, includes me).

[Deakon]

[ QUOTE ]
Tournament speed has virtually nothing to do with correct tournament strategy.
Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this statement sums it up pretty well.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
It's more like lack of chips beat position. This is easy to see. When you're all-in and get called, position doesn't matter anymore.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Mason,

In the example that you give, you are totally correct, but it's also a 2 edged sword. Even with lack of chips, you still have to pay attention to your position when pushing. It seems like an odd way to formulate the question in general.

I liked Arnold's book Blackbelt in blackjack a lot, and I found his book on internet bonus whoring to be very worthwhile also.

Best regards,
Jordan