Probably could've just posted this in the 'coming books' thread, but anyway...

PTFII Intro

I predict that Fourth Of July is going to come early.

Just the first paragraph would be enough.

Big words again from Mr. Snyder.

I have to ask though, what are his credentials regarding deep-stack tournament poker? He claims "I’m actively playing pro-level tournaments myself, and I’m making money in these events." Proof?

As much as he tries to discredit and belittle the "authorities", Dan Harrington's numerous exceptional results in the type of tournaments Snyder seems to be adressing in Vol.2 can't be neglected. So at least Dan does not seem to be "handicapped" by anything when he's playing these tourneys.

I have serious doubt that Snyder is going to reinvent the (poker tournament) wheel with this book.

Indeed they are. I'm not sure if they are purposely inflammatory or if I just view them that way in light of past events.


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.


So do I and, as you're probably aware, I was (and am) a fan of the original PTF. That doesn't mean that I expect PTF II to be a bust. It means that "reinventing the wheel" implies something revolutionary and (regardless of the hype in the introduction) I don't anticipate that. I do expect that I will gain value from the book in two ways. First from getting a better understanding of some ideas already presented elsewhere (because Snyder's approach to explaining them is likely to be different - looking at concepts from a different perspective is often enlightening). I also expect to pick up a few new items to add to my bag of tricks. Of course until the book actually comes out and I've read it I won't know for sure.

Should be a fun read.

" Likewise, while there are a lot of books on the market today on how to play tournaments, and some of the tips in these books are excellent, for the most part, the authors who have written these books are handicapped by being a bunch of poker players, or worse, mathematicians"

Oh, lordy...

While I do feel like I should at this remark, I think Snyder means that the mathematics of something may be right, the psychology of tournaments alters the way things play out. People don't often make +EV decisions, don't follow game theory models, and sometimes don't make sense at all. While I think +EV decisions in tournaments are very important, stack utility sometimes overrides EV considerations. It's all well and good to realize shoving at a certain time is -EV, but forcing an opponent to make a cloudy decision for his tournament life is advantageous.

My analogy is that cash games are like balancing your checkbook, while tournaments are gambling with your life. If your life were a pile of chips, that is.

Snyder's intro sure is setting the bar high for the "Revolution."

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.

Even though I am sure Mr. Malmuth knows Mr. Snyder's real name, I think it would be inappropriate for him to reveal it. However, I think it would be appropriate for Mr. Malmuth to tell us if Mr. Snyder has been having success in "professional" tournaments.

I don't think Mason should or would give us Snyder's results (even if he so desired to collect them).

Are we suggesting Arnold Snyder is a pseudonym? I think he's testified in court before on gambling related cases, so I doubt that's the case. Having said that, I can't find any reference in online databases to him playing major tourneys.

In the end, it doesn't matter, he'll win, because I'll pony up the dollars for his book.

That is my understanding although I may be totally off base since I can't remember where I got that idea.

From Snyder's Website:

This is just plain silly. It just happens to be that it was us poker mathematicians who were the first ones to point out that the mathematics of tournaments is different from the mathematics of poker.

Best wishes,
Mason

I love his first book and will definitely be getting this next one - but I too am interested in seeing some of his tournament results. The usual poker websites don't seem to have much on him - and ****, even I have a profile on them, so who is this guy?

We are not part of his demographic

I seriously doubt he is trying to discredit Harrington. Harrington introduced the M concept, which has little to do with poker. It is strictly a tournament concept. Snyder is doing more of the same and taking it further.

I haven't read his first book but I have read other tournament books, like Wongs. I've played in craps and blackjack tournaments and know that the proper strategy has little to do with normal good strategy. Most tournament strategies suggest attempting to create huge variance that will usually wipe you out but will have the greatest chance of distancing you from most of the field when they work. For example, in a craps tournament if you see several people make big pass line bets you might go all in on the don't pass. Given his non-poker background, I would expect that such strategies are what he has developed for NL holdem tourneys.

I have watched jeopardy champions who are smart enough to win several days in a row but who still don't understand proper betting for final jeopardy. For example, most of them don't even know that in a close three way match that the guy in third place should bet zero.

I saw him play 10/20 NL holdem at the Bellagio against Phil Laak and I think he held his own pretty well. Given what I saw, I think he would do well in deepstack tournaments also.

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...egy_True_M.htm

Wrong. Or rather, I don't see how "poker" and "tournament" are exclusive. M addresses hand selection and (lack of) implied odds. This is poker, and the same concepts apply in cash games involving short stacks. The Red Zone strategy is about folding equity and calling odds. Tournament play is different to ring games, but it's still poker.

Of course there's a big difference between regular and tournament play in table games. Instead of playing against the house, you compete against other players, which means it's hardly the same game anymore.
Difference between ring games and tournaments in poker is less significant, so the comparison isn't valid. What you are suggesting is an extremely loose-aggressive style. This might work out occasionally but there are a lot more counter-strategies available for the other players than in a blackjack tourney. If you run hot there they can't catch you. In poker, you are never hopeless.

Poppycock!

It doesn't matter what an author's attitude or belief is. All that matters is-does the author's book give the reader value.

If attitude mattered, I wouldn't buy any of Sklansky's books. I'll let others elaborate. DUCY? aetheistic cradle robber arrggh now ya got me going

I don't know about this. The more I play and learn about both cash games and tournaments, the more I think that the difference between the two is greatly underestimated by most players.

emerson is right about M not really being about poker. It's not comparable to sitting short-stacked in a cash game; there's an implicit 'time' component at a given level of 'M' that is based on adjusting requirements to be able to deal effectively with upcoming blind increases. There's no such issue with being short-stacked at a cash table. Sit there at 20BB all day long and don't play a hand. Once the blinds go through, rebuy. An exaggerated example, but the principle applies.

"I haven't read his first book but I have read other tournament books, like Wongs. I've played in craps and blackjack tournaments and know that the proper strategy has little to do with normal good strategy. Most tournament strategies suggest attempting to create huge variance that will usually wipe you out but will have the greatest chance of distancing you from most of the field when they work."

In those touraments the players are playing against the house, not each other. And there is a fixed time limit after which they count up the chips. If there was a poker tournament where each contestant played head up, for two hours, against similarly programed computers, you would have an analogy. But I haven't seen too many such tournaments lately.

HOH Vol II, p. 127:

Also, last I heard, tournaments are a real, and sometimes profitable, form of poker. People who dismiss tournaments are generally people who can't play tournaments.

C'mon man, he said he 'introduced' m, not 'invented' m.

I have played virtually only tournaments and understand that he's not having a go at tournaments or their, rather just highlighting how big the difference is between the two forms.

I felt conflicted writing this book, because I’m actively playing pro-level tournaments myself, and I’m making money in these events. I’ve asked myself why I would want to give such valuable information to potential opponents. I seriously considered calling my publisher and telling him that, contract or no contract, I had decided against sending him the manuscript. I have no desire to put my name on a bad poker book that contains nothing but a lot of rehashed fluff, and the book I’ve written—in which I greatly enjoy tearing apart a lot of the accepted ideas on how to make money in pro-level events—is really too valuable to publish. [QUOTE from PTF11]


Geez anyone got a barf bag. Really really cheezy.
This release will surely draw a great deal of INTERSTING debate.

I won't elaborate, but will say I'm glad to see I'm not the only one to think the same thing.