Tournament: Sklansky is in error

Yannick Frenette opinion article, alias Yaf, concerning the theory of the gap concept and the reverse-chip value (decreasing values of tokens). Comparison of the theories of David Sklansky and Arnold Snyder.
Who am I to allow me to question the most famous poker theorist? First, go to César what belongs to César: the ideas discussed below do not come from my small brain, but well of Arnold Snyder, author of the Tournament Formula I and II. An excellent poker player, coupled with a legend of the Black Jack (one of 7 nominees of the BlackJack Hall of Fame database).

In the introduction to the book Power Hold'em ' em Strategy written by Daniel Negreanu and collaborators, Negreanu mentions the top three poker ledgers according to lui·: in fact, he called that 2, question of a Plaza for a potential masterpiece.
Read More the two mentioned works are the legendary Doyle Brunson Super System and, you guessed it, Tournament Formula of Arnold Snyder. In was not more to pique my interest and possibly lead me to read this book. Being a notorious procrastinator, I unfortunately delivered reading the next day, then two days later, depriving me of the content of this gem for a period which, from my current point of view, seems very extra. Too long. In this jewel, Snyder Associates Tournament tokens to ammunition and skills (the "skills", i.e. the ability to read the cards of his opponents and tells, the ability to make good bluffs, etc.) are associated with the weapons. Obviously, without ammunition, weapons no longer serve to nothing...

Back to Slansky. I am of the opinion that it bathes in error, not to say it is there drowns. Snyder can afford to correct Slansky, up to say it - indirectly - that it is a "·poker author with little understanding of bluffing to distort [V] on Neumann's work this way·. Page 215. He said also that Slansky theories already established by other theorists without making them the credit that he had them. Bang for the ego of Slansky. You explain how to play Snyder· in 2-3 words: the opposite of the HarringtonBot style.

Before astray me, I asked if Snyder could afford to correct Slansky? In my opinion, Yes, Yes, certainly, beyond doubt possible. Firstly, it is undeniable that Slansky is one of the greatest theorists and mathematicians of poker, but as is it performance? It intends to talk about its results, play on TV, etc.? Non. In addition, Snyder contends its contre-theorie with excellent information and solid examples. 2 key concepts that destroyed Slansky sont· Snyder:

1-····· Reverse-chip value: the fact that less tokens, more take value and vice versa.

2-····· The gap concept.

Decreasing value of chips:

David Slansky, especially in Tournament for Advanced Poker Players, popularized the idea that more of tokens, less the value of these is large and, conversely, less of tokens, most take the value. As the argument, Sklansky outlines the fact that the winner of a tournament ends up with all the chips, but only a part of the tournament awards. Similarly, when there are 2 players, these come to the set of tokens, but still, only a part of the prize pool. It is also of a different logic to demonstrate that less you have chips, most take the value. You can see the Sklansky books for more details.

However, this idea widely implanted in the head of poker players has little meaning. Someone thinking so should almost be happier losing chips to win since it adds value to its holdings in losing! SIC! And sick! Snyder demonstrates the opposite with a great aisance·: less you have chips, less you can use your weapons (bluff, caller for info, check - raiser, better value, etc.). Make war with a rifle and little or no ammunition, this is not very convenient. In return, with a ton of ammos, you can transform your Colt 45 automatic weapon and shoot taking the trigger fully. It is with these arguments in mind that Snyder brings the most important concept in poker tournament: the concept of Chip Utility. This concept is so important that the Pot Odds often do not have to be sufficient to make a Call with one hand whereas if we win, we will have more chips and can thus benefit more fully Chip Utility. Best tournament players know and do so. For example, Gus Hansen is often criticized for its calls looses, and dit·qu' he doesn't have a hand as strong as these opponents to call a bet. He is well aware of the concept of Chip Utility.

The Gap Concept

This another wrong concept of Slansky, once again widely implanted in the head of poker players, goes against logic. He claims that it takes a stronger hand to call a bet from an opponent, than it takes to bet because building, your opponent has already demonstrated a certain quality of hand. Yet here, Snyder destroyed clothing Slansky. It demonstrates that having the position on your opponent is more important and should lead you to call with a lot of hands. It brings many arguments to that effect... but I would say no more: it will force you to read the book if you want to learn more! I recommend it highly!

In conclusion, as Galfon '·tout like Slansky, I have a good ego·' and I like to brag. So, I would say that I have probably the most beautiful library pokerrienne of the province, either + 120 pounds of poker/gambling. The number I've read (and reread!) more than half. However, if I tell you that Poker Tournament Formula I and II are gold (among others you learn to switch between the SmallBall and the LongBall and bluffing), I think I can say that I do not speak through my hat. One question comes me out on top in this moment·: how, despite the number of books that I read, can I therefore be even if bad player?

Discuss this article on the forum: Sklansky vs. Snyder: Who is right?