Response to Sklansky's article "Chips Changing Value in Tournaments" - Page 7

Brann · #61 10-21-2006, 01:38 AM

I can't address the math and stats everyone's tossing around but as a player who's progressing I'd like to put things in perspective for any semi-noobs like me.

HFAP was the first poker book I ever bought and I've since purchased several more 2+2 books, including everything by Harrington.

Every one of those 2+2 books advanced my game.

But I was stuck. I rarely cashed in tourneys or MT SNGs and wasn't progressing at all.

Snyder's book changed all that. I recognized myself in one chapter (a classic wuss) and finally, finally understood position.

I credit what success I'm having now, albeit at very low levels, to the S&M, Harrington, and Snyder books. I could give a big rat's behind about the math behind it.

Frankly, this whole thing started off, in another thread, as a rather civil discussion/disagreement. Unfortunately, it went downhill fast.

Whatever the math, how about someone step up and try to bring some civility back to this disagreement?

If you want to call each other morons while debating the math, why don't you just IM each other for God's sake? Jeez.

Brann

ECDub · #62 10-21-2006, 05:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, this whole thing started off, in another thread, as a rather civil discussion/disagreement. Unfortunately, it went downhill fast.

Whatever the math, how about someone step up and try to bring some civility back to this disagreement?

If you want to call each other morons while debating the math, why don't you just IM each other for God's sake? Jeez.

Brann

[/ QUOTE ]

The math seems to be a big deal because if Snyder is correct, it would make a lot of the 2+2 information incorrect. Since Snyder came in and said they were giving people flawed information, obviously S&M have to defend themselves. Even if they did realize they were wrong (not picking sides one way or the other), they couldn't admit it at this point in front of the entire community. So IMing each other in private will not help now that it is all out in the open. So the battle will never have a winner and Snyder is not going to say he is wrong. He definitely stands behind his information.

Personally, Snyder's information makes more sense to me, but if Mason says it is off, I respect his opinion as well. I have the book ordered to check it out for myself. Even with the flawed information, Mason said the book could be help players, so the reasoning for its effectiveness is not really what I am concerned with if it makes me a better player.

Red_Diamond · #63 10-21-2006, 12:04 PM

This reminds me of the time that electronics college graduate invented a perpetual machine. He then sold his book (at expensive value), which was more about everything you can use your perpetual machine for, but not really on how it works in detail.

Oh he did manage to get a patent in two states (hard to do when it defies thermodynamics). Though it was discovered through tests the extra ENERGY created was due to false readings of the measuring tools, due to rapid spikes of the current.

Whether he fooled himself into believing he defied the laws of physics, or set this up as a scam is a good question.

Anyhow…. Carry on, this is interesting.

George Rice · #64 10-21-2006, 04:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Snyder's book changed all that. I recognized myself in one chapter (a classic wuss) and finally, finally understood position.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's perfectly understandable for a couple of reasons.

First, Mason agrees with most of what Snyder recommends. If Snyder is in fact wrong where they differ, and right for the wrong reasons when they don't, you still should do well against the mostly unknowledgeable opponents you'll be facing.

Second, S&M's style is more general and theoretical than, say, a cookbook type text. Obviously TOP falls into this category. But HPFAP falls into this category too. I read HPFAP for years and would understand it better the more experience I obtained. But there was a large leap after reading Ed Miller's book, even though it differs in that it's geared towards small stakes games (but 20/40, 30/60 and even 40/80 frequently play like small stakes games online). I think the main reason was that hearing the same information using different words and from a different point of view helped me understand the material even more.

I haven't read Snyder's book, but, from what I heard others quote, it's more of a cookbook style of book. And I suspect that I will also get something out of it, once I bring myself to buy it.

I suspect after you've mastered, or think you've mastered Snyder's book, and go back to Harrington's book, you'll discover there was a lot more there than you initially realized.

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, this whole thing started off, in another thread, as a rather civil discussion/disagreement. Unfortunately, it went downhill fast.

Whatever the math, how about someone step up and try to bring some civility back to this disagreement?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the discussion is mostly civil. It may seem 'heated' at times, but there's nothing wrong with that.

George Rice · #65 10-21-2006, 04:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
he math seems to be a big deal because if Snyder is correct, it would make a lot of the 2+2 information incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true. But it's equally correct that if Snyder is wrong, that brings his whole position under suspicion. Hence the line drawn in the sand. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Brann · #66 10-21-2006, 04:32 PM

George,

I'm not sure what you mean by "cookbook" but the chapter on position play alone was worth the cost of the book. Perhaps it is a "cookbook" in that it gives you the ingredients for a recipe, a strategy.

I guess the others are right...this subject has gone beyond a disagreement among theorists and turned personal.

No putting the egg back into the shell, eh?

Brann

BigAlK · #67 10-21-2006, 04:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read Snyder's book, but, from what I heard others quote, it's more of a cookbook style of book. And I suspect that I will also get something out of it, once I bring myself to buy it.

I suspect after you've mastered, or think you've mastered Snyder's book, and go back to Harrington's book, you'll discover there was a lot more there than you initially realized.

[/ QUOTE ]

George,

I want to respond to some of your older posts, but won't have the time to do so until tomorrow. Responding to this one doesn't take a lot of thought(especially since I'm mostly agreeing and reinforcing what you've already said).

I think you're right in categorizing some books as theoretical and others as more of a cookbook. Snyder's, while a cookbook, does address that, mainly in a chapter he calls "Breaking the Mold." In that he points out that anyone who always conforms to a cookbook style (whether The PTF, Kill Phil, Harrington, or whatever) is going to stall in their development as a player. He feels, and I agree, that the PTF is a good foundation to start from. I also think that Harrington is an excellent place to build a strong foundation. I started with Harrington myself. I've read both (HOHx and The PTF) multiple times and get something new out of both each time through. I think the more theoretical books are good in helping to identify concepts, ideas, and situations where a departure from a cookbook style might make sense. Without a basic foundation (probably from a "cookbook") they're hard to translate from theory to practice.

Your comment about reading the same thing presented in a different way sometimes leading to a break-thru in understanding is exactly what happened for me from reading Snyder's book. His discussion of position, cards, and chips and, more importantly, how they interelate has led to an vast improvement in how I analyze whether to continue in a hand and, if so, how to proceed. His player categorization scheme has also been a big help.

Regarding civil discourse, I don't think you've been a culprit and hope I haven't been either - I don't think I've gone over the line yet. Disagreement and pasioned debate is what these discussions should be about. But I do think those who say the discussion has gotten out of hand at times are absolutely correct.

Al

BigAlK · #68 10-21-2006, 04:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the others are right...this subject has gone beyond a disagreement among theorists and turned personal,

[/ QUOTE ]

It's definitely turned personal. But the way I see it I'd call it a disagreement between theorists and practioners.

punter11235 · #69 10-21-2006, 06:01 PM

Just out of curiosity : is there any public site with some work about simulations made on models which can simulate poker tournaments ? I dont have strong opinion on that matter and I think neither side has good enough arguments. It would be great to check some of that stuff in simuls.

Mason Malmuth · #70 10-21-2006, 07:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I haven’t read that post, nor Snyder’s book. I’ve only read Snyder’s articles. He’s clearly wrong when he claimed utility value in his heads-up equal skill example, which I proved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi George:

None of this is addressed in Snyder's book. It only came up, as far as I can tell, because I pointed out that in his book he analyzed the tournaments as if they were winner take all and not percentage payback. Instead of admitting the error and agreeing that it has only a small effect for most of the tournament, Snyder has been trying hard to prove that he was right anyway and that his book was written as a response to us.

If it wasn't so sad, all of this would be mildly entertaining. Snyder was someone who many of us, including myself, have respeceted for many years as a legitimate gambling authority and an honest voice in this field. That's all over now.

Best wishes,
Mason