Upcoming Article Will Clear Up Snyder Silliness

[David Sklansky]

Next month's magazine will contain an article by me that explains why Arnold Snyder's small tournament advice is usually right but often for the wrong reason. I want to summarize the key points now lest anyone think that the ideas in the article were spurred by something someone else writes in the next three weeks. Briefly:

1. In tournaments with more than one prize, the value of each successive chip you obtain is less than the previous one unless you are a bad player or have a very short stack.

2. The above syndrome is more pronounced as you get close to, or into the money.

3. The above syndrome #1 is even more pronounced if you are an expert player and is true even if the tournament is winner take all.

4. If you are not near the money and have a very short stack the concavity of the curve reverses. In other words your EV can more than double if you double up, even if you are an expert.

5. In order for this to occur it is necessary, but not sufficient, that your chances of doubling up before going broke is less than 50%.

6. The above occurs when you don't have enough chips to wait for a properly playable hand.

7. When blinds go up fast, the above situation occurs more often. So if you take coin flips indiscrimately in these kinds of tournaments you won't be that wrong that often. Much better though to do it only those times you should.

8.Although good player's extra chips decrease in value as they are added to their stack, they may still be above face value. Thus it might be correct to add on y chips with x chips in your stack even though it wouldn't be right to risk y chips getting even money if you were only a slight favorite (because the chips you are risking are worth much more than face value and somewhat more than the y chips you stand to gain.)

Got it? I'll answer questions after the article comes out.