Isn't this pretty much how all the successful players play?

I've just made it through the first part (chip utility) so far, but I'll review what I've read. Basically the author sets out to debunk myths and correct the non-optimal play strategy he says has been put forth in HOH, Kill Everyone, and other tourney books. He does this and continues on to describe his own approach which is really the same basic strategy reccommended by the books he is attacking.

For example, he says that HOH suggests a very conservative, weak/tight strategy early on that is based around survival. This isn't true at all. In HOH, Harrington introduces three different, but profitable styles to play in the early stages. Snyder's strategy is simply one of these strategies...the super-aggressive approach.

Then there's the whole chip utility thing which clearly is something all successful tournament players are aware of consciously or unconsciously. He gives ranks to tournaments based on structure and provides appropriate strategy to each.

The one big problem I have so far is Syder's argument against the theory behind chips changing value. He believes they change value, but in a converse way as, say, independent chip modeling does. He states that the more chips you have and more each one is worth based on the fact that you can evoke more fear into your opponents with more chips. I don't buy into it, but I would like to see other's opinions.

That's all I've read so far. I read most of PTF1 and it really helped my game, but I disagree with Snyder's whole theory of tournament speed being a factor in strategy. His strategies are correct, but for different reasons (M and not tourney speed). This book looks like it will help my tourney game a lot too and I suggest it to anyone who can cut through the author's bull**** and grudges against other authors. This book doesn't really disagree with other books in theory, but the author thinks it does.

From what i understand is Harrington just gives a brief idea how to play super agressive early in the tournament maybe one page worth. While Snyder seems to base his whole entire book on being super aggressive. I believe both styles can work its just a matter of picking the style that best suits you.

Harrington does mention the super-aggressive approach in the introduction of HOH1 and briefly outlines how this (and the other syles differ). He also does a good job of oulining some of the pros and cons he sees with those styles and as I read it believes that any of the styles can be a viable approach. But if you think the style of play you'll learn from the HOH series is the same thing Snyder is advocating you need to read both HOH and PTF2 over again.

Didn't say it was the same thing. Snyder's opinion is that HOH preaches weak/tight as the gospel when it encourages you to pick your own style and change gears when appropriate. HOH's hand examples are weak/tight by nature since that is Harrinton's preferred style.

It's funny, in Poker Wizards, Harrington says that, when playing, he's much more aggressive than people give him credit for, mostly due to what people have in HOH.

Then apparently "the same basic strategy reccommended by the books he is attacking" means something different to you than to me.

And Snyder mentions in PTF2 he does not believe Harrington himself is a "Harringtonbot."

The Harrington style is far more suited to the long slow WSOP type tournaments, as I imagine Harrington and Snyder would probably admit. Snyder says in PTF that a somewhat more measured style is neccesary for the slow tournaments.

The main thrust of the first book was to play aggressively from the off to build a stack because that's pretty much the only way that works if you're playing fast online type tournaments with ten or fifteen minute blind levels.

The first PTF is one of the few poker books I've read that definitely improved my game - when I read it I realised that I was practically the definition of the weak tight player that's horrified by the rising blinds and is praying for a good hand to play before the blinds hit him. I increased aggression levels and tried some of the plays Snyder described and immediately started seeing improvements, regularly finishing further and further in the tournament and cashing properly (i.e. not squeaking into the money but having a real shot at at least a final table appearance) on a far more frequent basis.

PTF cost me $20 or so and I would attribute about $700 I've won in online tournaments directly to ideas and attitudes taken directly from that book. Have the second book on the way in from amazon and am feverishly awaiting it

My quick take:

Snyder is almost diametrically opposed to Harrington on Hold’Em, which suggests a tight, “Cards First” mentality. Snyder emphasizes chips and position over cards. He spends much of the book discussing two aspects of his beliefs: fear and utility. He means utility in the economics sense, that a big stack allows you to fully use your poker skills to bluff, call down suspected bluffers, and bet for information.

When Snyder means a big stack, he means a BIG stack, 100BB+. That’s a big chip lead, even fairly early in a tournament. He says decisions should be based on “utility odds”, instead of standard pot odds.

The biggest problem with the book, in my opinion, is that he doesn’t spend much time at all describing how one can get this enormous chip lead. I suppose one would have to continually put one’s opponent to the test by raising, etc. He also discusses the currently popular “Small Ball” versus “Long Ball” strategies, and how his ideas relate to both. Snyder’s attitude leaps off the page, and whether you agree with him or not, this book should definitely challenges anyone’s perceptions.

In my opinion, this is a must-read for any serious poker book student.

Thanks for the succinct review SpaceLord.

I couldn't agree with your assessment more. There are no two ways about it, what Snyder puts forth serves as a near complete rejection of the HOH Strategies. Those who would try to say that the two strategies are in any way complementary are deluding themselves. Snyder clearly and unapologetically puts forth a strategy that ridicules the strategies put forth in the HOH Series. He even adds insult to injury by calling anyone who uses the HOH Strategies a "Harringbot". And, in Snyder's opinion "Harringbots" are players whose chips players using his strategies should find easy to make a part of their stacks.

The truth is he spends quite a bit of time describing how to attempt to get and maintain a BIG chip stack (Full Utility). It's just that he doesn't do so in a step-by-step, systematic fashion like he does in PTF1. When I read PTF2 (the first time, I'm on my second swim through the book), I got the distinct feeling that he didn't want to divulge any of this information (as Snyder himself said in the introduction). So, Snyder finally decided to introduce, in detail, the Utility Factor and give a more general, anecdotal treatment of how to use this "new" information to become a better poker player.

In the end, I think Snyder accomplished his mission. He gave us some really powerful information and a pretty good idea of how to use it, but he left the bulk of the work (incorporating this powerful information into our games) to us.

My review: Get big stack and beat-up on table. How to do it is not explained well IMO. How he managed to write ~500 pgs. about acquiring a big stack so that you can bully the table without explaining exactly how is beyond me. To me it was just a sales pitch for getting a big stack and destroying the names and beliefs of the 2+2 family.

My opinion, not that it matters, is your are correct in that he didn't give you a list of cards to play from what position. He does talk about what starting hands he might potentially consider playable in a lot of situations (in some cases this is ATC). But this is also pretty general and followed by the a comment something along the lines of "don't get too hung up on specific cards." If you want something more specific then you might consider starting with the hands discussed in PTF1 and adjusting as you see fit.

But really, if that is what you're looking for then PTF2 isn't for you. It also means you either missed the point of the book or disagreed with it. I hope it's the later because the former would be so bad.

But, it's written by a non-serious poker book author.

Serious authors do not insist on putting down other serious authors.

Also, since when is there only one universal way to successfully play a poker tournament?

That wasn't my point. My point really is that the book is all fluff. There was no need to write 500 pages that tell you the same thing over and over. He could have spoken more about specifics instead of the broad generality like "get big stack then bully table". Interesting concept, but nothing new. Why not talk more about how he suggests people do that.

Also, you appear to take offense with my comments by your tone and the way that you attacked my character at the end of your post. No need for that sir. I do just fine and do not need a chart to tell me how to play as a robot. I am commenting on how Snyder could have improved his book. Instead, IMO it's just an attempt to make more money off of a concept that isn't anything that's amazing. In addition, he does a poor job of explaining how to specifically achieve this concept.

Let's not forget that PTF 1 and 2 are for two different MTTs in Snyder's opinion. Therefore, why not be specific in PTF2 like he did in PTF1 since PTF2 is for deep slower tourneys? This would enhance his book for a broader audience and make it a better book IMO.

1. Your definition of serious is apparently much more narrow than most.

2. Who the heck said there was only one way to play a tournament? If you read the book, or even my post, Snyder talks about multiple ways to play, mostly Small Ball and Long Ball.

And the Snyder/Mallmuth/Sklansky disagreement is coming from all 3 directions, and I don't believe Sklansky has published a book since PTF1 came out.



Left field much?

My thoughts exactly. It's like reading Mein Kampf except with good points. Also, the more I read of PTF2 the more it started sounding like stuff I had already read somewhere else. Then it occured to me. The same stuff was in KILL EVERONE! Chip accumulation, small ball, long ball, ect. It was all there. The only thing PTF2 has that KE doesn't is lesser mathematical analysis, fluff (like chip utility ranks and ****), and a bad attitude toward all books that came before it.

Arnold Snyder, as a poker author, is like schoooo in summma tiiime.

I think your complaint of fluff has some validity although most of my feelings about that are due to the large portion of the book that were already available as articles on his web site that I'd already read. However I understand why he and/or his publisher felt they should be included in the book as well. I think NuPla's post tells the story. Snyder tells you how he thinks you should approach tournaments, but the directions aren't specific. I look at it as trying to give you the tools to figure out what works rather than the specifics.

You can make the case that he could have done a better job of explaining. I think that's a valid comment even if you don't expect a complete roadmap. My point in the closing comment came off harsher than I intended. What I was trying to say is that the premise of the book is that Snyder believes we have to change our approach. One of the points that I thought came through loud and clear was that ssome of the specifics (cards, etc) don't matter as much as changing the way we think about playing tournaments does. I really didn't think you had reading comprehension isssue. I thought you disagreed with Snyder (which is a valid position) but weren't saying that. From your subsequent comments I'm not sure what your opinion is so possibly I misinterpreted.

However PTF2 builds on PTF1 and refers to it often for directions on some of the more basic stuff. Although the target tournaments are different isn't it valid to assume that some things should be done the same? Does HOHII reference HOHI. Isn't this the same thing?

I agree.

I wouldn't hearing your take on Kill Everyone, Nuplaya3...

I just picked up this book tonight. The back cover says, "He [Arnold Snyder] consistently ranks in the top 5 percent of professional tournament poker players...." Ranked by whom?

I read that and immediately thought "typical Cardoza BS." I would assume this was written by the same person who thinks he published the 3 grreatest poker books the world has ever seen. At some point in the book (possibly in the section on bankroll) Snyder goes into some detail about how he's done and over what period. The quote was based on that. He discusses the rankings "Card Player" magazine does and was ranked in the top 5% of the players they had in their database for some specific period (I think 2007). The word consistent is, of course, crystal ball gazing. Even if he is in the top 5% YTD in 2008. He also says that he doesn't play under the Arnold Snyder name. If you've been following the threads on the book you should have a good idea of what name he plays under.

I THINK THIS BOOK IS A C MINUS

I was a huge fan of PTF v I (ya'll can look it up)

this book misses the mark

I have plenty to post, but I'll start with the main differences

1) Trying to meet an unreasonable goal

This book is trying to teach how to win in semi-deep to deep tournies against pro competition in one or two books. PTF v I warned how unlikely it is for the amateur to do this many, many times (see p34-5 at the start and it continued over and over). Are you seriously going to get in there over and over and tangle with real pros knowing what you learned from this book?

2) Didn't really teach the methods

No real hands and breakdown of how to achieve goals. Negreanu puts how to play smallball in his latest book. Gavin's chapter in Full Tilt tourney edition had a lot of info as well. Almost all hand break downs were lacking here. Play loose rather than survive... hope to not be against pros... profit is what this books recommends without many examples to back up what that means.

I WAS SEVERELY LET DOWN as an outspoken fan of volume I. I'll post even a more thorough review later, but you can feel safe passing this one by.

It was good to read Anyder's thoughts over 400 pages and think about it.... it's not a total bust. It just is not worth the price tag IMO.

I'm with you 100% on this (this book and PTF I) and I too will post a lot more info soon on why this isn't as good. To be honest, I actually struggled to finish the book, which is something that never usually happens.

I'll leave people with one idea though that puts the 'M'/Snyder argument in perspective:

- When discussing patience factor and differing blind structures within a tournament (i.e. 20min starting level, 30mins levels later), Snyder says (I'm paraphrasing), "it is possible to measure the speed of tourneys at different stages. However, this is not necessary, you just need to make a mental adjustment for the change in structure as you go". You know what, the exact same thing could be said for the entire tournament, just make a mental adjustment for the speed. Yet, he's built an entire argument against the advice of other authors for not saying to expressly consider speed. Maybe they just assume that people make a 'mental adjustment' for the speed...

I will offer my take on Kill Everyone by comparing KE to PTF2.

In my earlier post, I said one would be deluding himself if he felt the strategies offered in the HOH Series and PTF2 were in any way complementary or compatible for that matter. However, unlike the HOH Series, I believe parts of KE and PTF2 are at least compatible. The strategies put forth in KE's Parts One and Three are consistent with the loose aggressive style Snyder advocates in PTF2. I especially remember reading Part One of KE and thinking this is exactly what I need to jump start my play at the beginning of the tournaments I enter.

While KE tells you the plays you need to make to accumulate chips, Snyder tells you whether or not you have a large enough chip stack to comfortably make such plays. It is one thing to say you have the option to play small ball; and, it is another thing to say it is NOT optimal to play small ball if your chip stack is too short therefore you'll need to concentrate on long ball. Snyder gives the much needed context that is lacking in KE (and all other books for that matter).

Additionally, Snyder points out quite convincingly that what KE considers an adequate stack for "Full Utility" is not sifficient to make Information Bets (see PTF2 pg. 97). I believe KE is a much more valuable book now that I have the Utility Factor information that Snyder provides in PTF2. In fact, I would say EVERY book is more valuable now that Snyder has unvieled the Utility Factor. While I think Snyder has fallen short of the REVOLUTIONARY Book he believes he has released, the Utility Factor makes this book both an important REVELATION and ESSENTIAL reading. There is nowhere else to get the information that Snyder provides in Part I. And, yes, I agree that much of the rest of the book is rehash and regurgitation albeit with the nuance that it is rehash and regurgitation viewed through the Utility Factor lense which I believe IS significant and important.

One other point that cannot be argued is Snyder's correct refutation of KE's use of the Reverse Chip Value Theory as early as the "Bubble" period of large field tournaments (tournaments where the Bubble is not the final place before the Final Table). I actually think Reverse Chip Value Theory has merit at the Final Table where maintaining a competitive chip stack relative to the other player's chip stacks is more important than accumulating chips. But, if the goal is to get a premium finish, then continuing to try to build one's chip stack has to be a player's primary goal near the Bubble (and far from the BIG money).