Quote:
Originally Posted by BigAlK
Proof is unlikely to be coming. I assume he is playing these tournaments under his real name and suspect he wants to keep this secret due to other reasons. Is looking for proof a reasonable expectation? I'm torn. Do you expect this same disclosure from all poker authors? You can point to Harrington (at least in regards to tournaments) and say you've seen his results, but have you really? You know what he's won, but to overuse the cliche, "how much has he lost"? I'm sure Harrington is profitable in tournaments, but I don't have proof. Harrington's qualifications in cash games were called into question by some here. Those questions have now stopped (either due to Mason's response or people having actually seen the book- probably some of both). Ultimately you've got to decide from either reading the book or feedback from elsewhere once it comes out. I'll bet there will be plenty of discussion in this forum once the book is actually available to help you decide.
Even if he provided you with this "proof" would it really prove anything? I'll point you to Phil Helmuth's apparent results and contrast it with the value of his book as to the pointlessness of any proof of results.
Of course there will never be an actual "proof". And Dan Harrington has probably run pretty well in the WSOP. Donks have won millions and decent players never reach a final table.
But that's not the point. The point is Snyder's arrogant and condescending attitude that's on display here yet again. He claims his concepts are much superior (!) to what the "authorities" say, and of course he's referring to 2+2 and especially Harrington. This is just uncalled for. Harrington has been playing big poker tournaments for 20+ years now. His results are excellent and there's no way around it. His books have been rated highly across the board.
What's on Snyder's resumee? He's a Blackjack expert but Blackjack has very little to do with poker. His poker experience is unknown. He might well be an authority on fast Casino tournaments, that's why his first pook could have some merit. But there is no indication he has had lots of experience in the big ones. [Unless he has made final tables under his real name, which I doubt to be honest.]
So why should I believe that his concepts have been thoroughly tested in real life, and are actually working? Why should I even listen to him?
If I had to choose between Snyder's and Harrington's publications based on their tourney success, of course I would choose Harrington. That doesn't mean Snyder's ideas are useless. But he has no right to prance around and claim that he knows all and everyone else is a clueless moron. Sadly, that's exactly what he is doing.
I'll skip this one.