More Snyder, More Response

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

Here's another article from Arnold Snyder and I'm going to respond to some of it.
Snyder Article

So here goes. Also, the page numbers I site are from the sixth edition which is the current edition, I believe that Snyder is looking at an older edition where the page numbers are a little different. Snyder writes:

[ QUOTE ]
In Gambling Theory and Other Topics, p. 232, Mason Malmuth states: “As the poker tournament essays have stressed, in a percentage payback tournament, the less chips you have, the more each individual chip is worth, and the more chips you have, the less each individual chip is worth. This idea is the major force that should govern many of your strategy decisions in a poker tournament.”

I will show that extending this chip value idea to a dominant factor in devising overall poker tournament strategy is a humongous error in logic. And, because it has led to more bad tournament strategies than just about any other “truth” about tournaments ever revealed to the public, it has been a tremendously costly error in logic to players.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It is the basis of the whole conservative, sit-and-wait-for-a-hand approach to tournaments, as well as bad advice on just about every aspect of tournament play from how to play a short stack to final table play to optimal rebuy strategy to satellite strategies, and more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to be quoting directly out of Gambling Theory and Other Topics. Everyone will see that it does not advocate a sit-and-wait-for-a-hand approach to tournaments. In fact, it's not even close.

Snyder writes:

[ QUOTE ]
On p. 196 of Malmuth’s Gambling Theory rebuy chapter, he says: “If you are leading in a tournament and someone rebuys, the pot is not being ‘sweetened’ for you… Discouraging your opponents from rebuying when they are broke should be an important part of your overall tournament strategy.”

Malmuth bases this advice on the math in a model in which all players have equal skill, making the model inappropriate for poker tournaments, and making his advice absolutely terrible for skilled players. In any real-world tournament, assuming that any players at your table actually give a damn what you recommend regarding their rebuy decisions, you should encourage the poor (read “conservative”) players to rebuy and discourage the more skillful (read “skillfully fast and aggressive”) players from rebuying. If you believe you’ve got an edge on the whole table, encourage them all to rebuy and add-on as much as they possibly can. If they don’t know how to use chips when they have them, believe me, they will indeed ultimately be “sweetening the pot” for you

[/ QUOTE ]

Starting on page 209 of the Gambling Theory book is the chapter titled "Tournament Strategy." On page 214 it says:

[ QUOTE ]
Concept No. 5: Try to get at a table with poor players who rebuy a lot. This may be difficult since many tournaments assign seats, but you could try some seat trading. Even though it is correct for almost all players to rebuy, if some players rebuy a lot and usually give their money away, you want to be in a good position to get it. This way, when your table breaks, if you are still in the tournament, you will have on average more chips than you would if you were at a tight table where no one makes a rebuy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Snyder writes:

[ QUOTE ]
Mason Malmuth may be the foremost advocate of a tight style of play in poker tournaments. On page 210 of Gambling Theory and Other Topics, Malmuth advises players that it is incorrect for a player who is short-stacked to raise with a “marginal hand” or push all-in with a “calling hand” because, since “the less chips you have, the more (relatively speaking) each individual chip is worth… This means that going out with a bang is wrong. You should try to go out with a whimper. That is, try to make those few remaining chips last as long as possible.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the complete concept:

[ QUOTE ]
Concept No. 11: Don’t go out with a bang in percentage-payoff tournaments. We have seen that it is correct to rebuy when you are low on chips and that it is incorrect to rebuy when you have a lot of chips. As has been mentioned, a logical extension of this — which can be shown mathematically — is that in percentage-payoff tournaments, the less chips you have, the more (relatively speaking) each individual chip is worth, and the more chips you have, the less (relatively speaking) each individual chip is worth. This means that going out with a bang is wrong. You should try to go out with a whimper. That is, try to make those few remaining chips last as long as possible.

One of the most common mistakes typical players make in a tournament is to raise on an early round, putting themselves all in, when they have only a marginal raising hand. The correct way to play in this spot is to just call and try to preserve enough chips to play another hand in case this one quickly becomes a loser. (The exception is if you believe the raise will enable you to win the pot or to significantly narrow down the field.) A similar error is raising all in with just a calling hand. A player would be much better off preserving those few extra chips so that he could play another hand should he have to fold the current hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice the sentence in parenthesis: (The exception is if you believe the raise will enable you to win the pot or to significantly narrow down the field.)

On page 210 of GTOT I write:

[ QUOTE ]
Let’s look at an example. Suppose players A and B enter a tournament over and over again. The buy-in for the tournament is $100, and they each receive $100 in tournament chips. A plays in such a way that after one hour of play, he always has exactly his initial buy-in of $100 in chips. B plays in a much more aggressive and reckless manner. Three out of every four tournaments, he quickly goes broke, but one out of every four tournaments, he manages to have $400 in chips after one hour of play. So the question is, who is better off?

Clearly, each player has the same expectation of $100 in tournament chips after one hour of play. The difference is that the standard deviation around A’s expectation is zero, since he always has $100 in chips, but the standard deviation around B’s expectation is large, since he usually is broke but sometimes does quite well. However, because of the mathematics that govern percentage-payback tournaments, we know that the less chips a player has, the more each individual chip is worth, and the more chips a player has, the less each individual chip is worth. This means that it is better to have $100 in tournament chips all the time than to have $400 in tournament chips one-fourth of the time and zero three-fourths of the time. Consequently, A’s approach of following survival tactics is clearly superior.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sndyer doesn't like this. He writes:

[ QUOTE ]
Malmuth tells us little about Player B’s strategy other than that it is “aggressive and reckless.” I have described in detail in The Poker Tournament Formula how fast strategy earns more chips than conservative strategy while actually tending to lead to fewer confrontations and less risk of bouncing out of a tournament early. So there is no reason to equate the higher earnings of fast strategy with recklessness and increased bust-outs. (Despite this, even if Player B was a poker neophyte who had very little understanding of the game, but just liked to get his chips into action and gamble, I’d put my money on Player B’s overall earning power in tournaments before I’d bet a nickel on Player A. That’s how strong the value of aggression is in tournaments, as opposed to conservatism.)

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, Snyder misses the point. If the more aggressive player busted out three of four tournaments but then had $500 instead of $400 in chips, I would agree, and I also agree (as we'll see below) that playing aggressively is usually the best approach. But I was illustrating a certain point about percentage payback math, nothing more.

Snyder writes:

[ QUOTE ]
The reason it does not exist for skilled players is that, as I have shown, chips have increased earning power when they are put into action with an edge more frequently, thus creating an implied discount on the chips. Malmuth’s tight “survival tactics”, by failing to use chips for their full earning power, are in effect leading to a higher chip cost for his tight player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, what exactly are my tight “survival tactics.” Here are some quotes from my book"

Page 209: [ QUOTE ]
Concept No. 1: If you can afford to rebuy, play fast.

[/ QUOTE ]

Page 210: [ QUOTE ]
A common misconception held by many players is that survival means to play super tight. But this is not at all the case. Survival means not going for those extra bets and not playing marginal hands in an attempt to make an extra profit. In some spots, you actually can play looser. Also, the further along the tournament is, the more important it is to survive. For example, if the top eight players receive money, it is much more important to be in your survival mode when nine people are left than when fifty people are left.

[/ QUOTE ]

Page 211: [ QUOTE ]
Concept No. 3: Take advantage of tight play. Many players tend to play extremely tight in tournaments simply because they want to survive. (Note that playing tight is not my definition of survival.) This means that two major adjustments from regular play should be made. On the opening round, as David Sklansky pointed out at one of his seminars, if no one has yet entered the pot, you should open looser, since more antes than usual can be stolen. But if someone playing tight is already in the pot, call less frequently with hands of value, since you most likely will be looking at a strong hand. By the way, if you are in your fast mode, you may want to raise with some of your calling hands.

In the later rounds, these same ideas hold. One world-class player I know put it this way: “You don’t win tournaments — you steal them.”

I want to point out the importance of this concept. Many tournament players seem to look for any excuse to throw their hands away. In fact, I am convinced that some of the more successful tournament players would be losers if they used the same playing style in a regular ring game — that is, taking advantage of tight opponents. Keep in mind that this concept is consistent with the definition of survival. In other words, you are not really playing loose; you are merely taking advantage of the incorrect strategies that your opponents are using.

Let me give a specific example. When playing hold ’em in a ring game, one reason not to call a raiser when you hold a weak hand is that if you don’t flop anything, his subsequent bet or bets will force you from the pot, even if there is a good chance that he also has a weak hand. But in a tournament, suppose this same player is less likely to bet when he doesn’t flop anything because he doesn’t want to put himself in jeopardy of being eliminated from the tournament. In this case, calling before the flop with a hand that would not warrant it in a ring game may become correct. If your opponent now checks on the flop, indicating that he has missed, you can take advantage of his tight play and possibly bluff him out.

This may be why some less knowledgeable people believe that fast, reckless play is the key to successful tournament strategy. But in reality, they fail to recognize correct bluffs, which normally would not be correct in a regular ring game.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of my criticisms of Snyder's book is his play of automatically calling a raise if you're on the button and no one else is in. If I understood his reasoning, he seems to think that this play is correct because of tournament speed and I don't believe that tournament speed has much to do with it. But I do agree that the play will often work for other reasons. Notice that the last couple of paragraphs in my quoted passage give a very similar play.

Page 214: [ QUOTE ]
Special note. Most tournament players will advise you not to rebuy and to play tight. This approach often appears correct, since many tournaments are won by the player who jumps into an early lead that does not require a rebuy and then manages to survive by what appears to be tight play. I hope this essay and the preceding one have shown that the best strategy is to play fast early, with the intention of rebuying if necessary, and then to try to survive. Remember, playing fast is not the same as playing loose, and surviving is not the same as playing tight. In fact, to someone who does not understand correct tournament strategy, surviving can even look like loose play in certain situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Page 217 [ QUOTE ]
Concept No. 12: Overplay hands against short stacks. Even though it is not correct, players on short stacks tend to go out with a bang. In addition, their limited amount of chips often will prevent them from getting full value from their hands. Consequently, against these players, who find ways to put their remaining chips in jeopardy, you sometimes can overplay your hands. Although this should be tempered somewhat if you are currently trying to survive, overplaying your hands against short stacks is often the correct strategy and is not inconsistent with the idea of survival. In addition, keep in mind that the penalty to your opponent for losing the pot (since he is short stacked) will be greater than your penalty for losing the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Page 217: [ QUOTE ]
Concept No. 14: Late in a tournament, you should call liberally if:
1. You have good chip position,
2. It won’t cost much to call, and
3. You have an opportunity to eliminate this opponent.

Late in a tournament, if you are in a strong position and someone goes all in for a small amount, you should call if there is little possibility that someone else will play, even if you are taking slightly (or sometimes even much) the worst of it. Not calling may give this player new life. Note that in this spot, since your opponent is all in, your call won’t help him that much. But eliminating this player will help you a great deal, since he can’t finish ahead of you if he is no longer in the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

page 220 [ QUOTE ]
Concept No. 17: Late in a tournament, if you are in a good chip position, be willing to make bets with seemingly negative expectations against a short stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Snyder writes:

[ QUOTE ]
Malmuth’s theory about individual chip values is dead wrong through most of a tournament. Throughout 90+% of a tournament, any individual chips in a short stack aren’t worth squat. They simply represent a last desperate shot at survival for players who will almost certainly not make it into the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

My book never intended to imply that the difference in chip values was a significant factor near the beginning of the tournament. At least not due to the reason of the percentage payback structure. Here is what I say on page 204:

[ QUOTE ]
Special note. These three concepts illustrate a powerful force that operates in tournament play when the money is distributed on a percentage basis: The value of the chips that are on the table is not constant from player to player. (This is not true in a regular ring game, where each chip has the same value.) Specifically, the more chips you have, the less each individual chip is worth, and the less chips you have, the more each individual chip is worth. This extremely powerful idea, as you will see in the essays that follow, will have a major influence on proper tournament strategy.
However, it needs to be noted that this force becomes significant only late in a tournament. Early in a tournament, it is not that crucial. The reason for this is that early in a tournament, a large stack still represents only a small proportion of the total number of chips, while late in a tournament, a significant amount of the total chip pool can be present in one large stack. This means that early in a tournament, the difference between the value of individual chips, when comparing a large stack with a small stack, may not be very much. But late in a tournament, this difference in chip value can be so significant that it can cause dynamic changes in strategy to become the proper approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as short stacks are concerned, there is one case where the value can be less than face value. But it's not for the reason that Snyder thinks. Extremely short stacks in games with blinds have the problem that they will often disappear before getting a chance to play the free hands that they paid for with their blinds. Stud games however do not have this problem, and there is no question that very short stacks are worth significantly more than their fact value.

Here's some of what else I say concerning the size of chip stacks:

Page 213: [ QUOTE ]
Concept No. 4: Don’t bluff the large stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Page 215: [ QUOTE ]
Concept No. 8: When playing fast, attack the large stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

page 215: [ QUOTE ]
Concept No. 9: When trying to survive, stay away from the large stacks

[/ QUOTE ]

page 216: [ QUOTE ]
Concept No. 10: Avoid speculative hands when you are low on chips and can’t rebuy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Page 217: [ QUOTE ]
Concept No. 12: Overplay hands against short stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Page 217: [ QUOTE ]
Concept No. 14: Late in a tournament, you should call liberally if:
1. You have good chip position,
2. It won’t cost much to call, and
3. You have an opportunity to eliminate this opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Page 218: [ QUOTE ]
Concept No. 15: Steal less late in a tournament if low on chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Best wishes,
Mason

[Brice]

I am curious as to why these are being stickied?

[alimomoney]

When you are the boss.....

[Al Mirpuri]

Once upon a time, an aspiring poker theorist was friends with a learned authority but they fell out over the truth.

The aspiring poker theorist became the learned authority.

There then came a time when this learned authority although friends with an aspiring poker theorist fell out in search of a new truth!?

Is history repeating itself?

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
Is history repeating itself?

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not. It's inexcusable and shameful to claim that someone has written something very different from what they have written, and then to attempt to explain what is wrong with it.

Our advice on how to play poker tournaments is in many situations very different from what Snyder claims our advice is, and our overall philosophy on how to play poker tournaments is completely different from what he states it is. That was the purpose of this thread.

best wishes,
mason

[Packard]

I used to be a bigger fan of Arnold Snyder when I read his blackjack writings. I am not liking Snyder anymore.

Snyder can't hold a candle to Mason in poker.

Well at least I got some brain refreshment in tournament tips from reading this thread.

[betgo]

Do you disagree with Snyder's article? I think what Snyder is suggesting is consistent with the consensus on the MTT forum, as well as HOH and other recent MTT books.

The advice he disputes from TPFAP appears questionable. As TPFAP is mostly geared to limit tournaments, some of it may not be applicable to NLHE tournaments.

I think it is a compliment to TPFAP that someone is writing an article saying certain portions are questionable. It is like "man bites dog is news". Sklansky's writings are generally viewed as authoritative and correct.

There would really be no point in writing an article refuting portions of Cloutier and McEvoy's books. Much of there advice is obviously incorrect and ridiculous.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you disagree with Snyder's article? I think what Snyder is suggesting is consistent with the consensus on the MTT forum, as well as HOH and other recent MTT books.

[/ QUOTE ]


Could you be a little more specific? The Snyder article makes a few references to TPFAP but they seem to address rebuys only from what I read. I don't remember HOH discussing rebuys ever.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you disagree with Snyder's article? I think what Snyder is suggesting is consistent with the consensus on the MTT forum, as well as HOH and other recent MTT books.

[/ QUOTE ]


Could you be a little more specific? The Snyder article makes a few references to TPFAP but they seem to address rebuys only from what I read. I don't remember HOH discussing rebuys ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Snyder criticizes TPFAP for saying you should go out with a wimper rather than bang due to payout structure. HOH advocates making plays with a short stack rather than waiting for a hand and being blinded out.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you disagree with Snyder's article? I think what Snyder is suggesting is consistent with the consensus on the MTT forum, as well as HOH and other recent MTT books.

[/ QUOTE ]


Could you be a little more specific? The Snyder article makes a few references to TPFAP but they seem to address rebuys only from what I read. I don't remember HOH discussing rebuys ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Snyder criticizes TPFAP for saying you should go out with a wimper rather than bang due to payout structure. HOH advocates making plays with a short stack rather than waiting for a hand and being blinded out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he was criticizing GTOT and not TPFAP for the go out with a whimper advice. Mason addressed this criticism in his original post. If I remember correctly Harrington is discussing when to go all in pre-flop on a short stack. Also to be fair, in the new Sklansky and Miller book there's quite a bit of material about when it's right to go all in pre-flop and that advice is specifically geared towards tournament play.