More On Snyder And Fast Play

[hblask 1]

Over the last couple weeks I've sporadically collected data on tournaments on Stars. I intentionally only collected on "normal" tournaments -- no turbos, no rebuys, no deep stacks. It's kind of boring to do, so I don't have a ton of data, and besides, the trend I was curious about is already clear.My main curiosity was how the "average M" changed over the life of the tournament. I thought it might be a bathtub shaped graph. Instead, it's pretty simple. Average M's start very high, plunge rapidly for the first 90 minutes, then hover just below 10 for the rest of the tournament.From a psychological point of view, this sort of makes sense. Nobody wants to be eliminated, so they play carefully until their stack is in trouble. As they slip below 10, any hand they play is probably for their whole stack. Then the "average" level of M goes up for a few minutes, people play slower and drop out more slowly for a little while.So my first thought is: do even "slow" tournaments (by Snyder's standard) eventually go to this? It seems like it would, based on the psychology involved. It just takes a little longer.So the difference between fast and slow tournaments, then, is how many minutes/hours into it you have to start trying to stay ahead of push-or-fold mode. In some tournaments, you have to be in crazy mode from the first hand; in some high buy-in pro events, it may not be until the 2nd day or later.What this tells me is Snyder is really just Harrington with a look-ahead function -- at what point does "average" mean "in trouble", and what do I need to do to never be one of those average stacks?It seems to me that in a "normal" Stars tournament, the stickied thread on 180s seems spot-on. I guess that's why it's been there so long. For the first hour you can play tight, solid poker. After the first break you've got about a half an hour to start figuring out ways to stay ahead of average. If you don't, your tournament becomes an all-in luckfest. If you do stay ahead, you can be the person who's still playing poker when everyone else is pushing with anything.Sticky thread > Snyder?(I should say, even if Snyder's "patience factor" turns out to be not much, his discussions of strategy are well above average for a poker tournament book.)

[ChrisRichey 1]

Great post, I couldn't agree more.

[SlackerInc 0]

Fantastic post! You ought to come over and discuss at the Snyder board (today, btw, he offered to credit me as a co-author of an article on his site and even pay me, which is pretty cool).

[copernicus 0]

If you do stay ahead, you can be the person who's still playing poker when everyone else is pushing with anything.Sticky thread > Snyder?

The only thing Id point out is that you cant play poker if they cant play poker...if by poker you mean standard raises and post-flop play. You can give yourself the edge over them by having a stack that can stand losses, but that isnt quite the same to me.As far as your observations on Snyder and most tournaments, I think they are correct...thats the problem with his patience factor..it doesnt adapt to the changing conditions of the tournament as it progresses...you are playing the same speed in say a level 3 skill factor tournament the whole time, but that tourney could be down to a level 1 in terms of the play thats really needed.Other than his player classifications I still havent found anything particularly new in PTF. Id also say that your observation of the value of the 20/180 strategy here points up another weakness in the "patience factor", which is that it still doesnt take into account skill advantages, which make playing more patiently than the patience factor dictates for the first hour viable and still recover if you are cold decked.

[SlackerInc 0]

The only thing Id point out is that you cant play poker if they cant play poker...if by poker you mean standard raises and post-flop play. You can give yourself the edge over them by having a stack that can stand losses, but that isnt quite the same to me.As far as your observations on Snyder and most tournaments, I think they are correct...thats the problem with his patience factor..it doesnt adapt to the changing conditions of the tournament as it progresses...you are playing the same speed in say a level 3 skill factor tournament the whole time, but that tourney could be down to a level 1 in terms of the play thats really needed.Other than his player classifications I still havent found anything particularly new in PTF. Id also say that your observation of the value of the 20/180 strategy here points up another weakness in the "patience factor", which is that it still doesnt take into account skill advantages, which make playing more patiently than the patience factor dictates for the first hour viable and still recover if you are cold decked.

I agree with your first point ("effective stacks" and all), though Snyder makes a compelling case for the advantage a large stack gives you. I don't agree with your second paragraph (though maybe I'm not understanding it) since he does advise playing differently at different stages ("crunch time" is a big deal in his book). The third paragraph, I think Snyder would strongly disagree and say that if you play tight early, you are giving up chances to use skill to outplay the other players.

[TwoFourOffsuit 0]

The thing with the patience factor is that it's main purpose is to determine the ideal tournaments with which to play the PTF style, along with other factors like the estimated time to reach the final table. A tournament with a higher patience factor will be better suited to using PTF than one with a lower patience factor. And if the factor's too low, the tournament format simply is not beatable for anyone with skill, a total luckfest.After that, the formula's strategy basically depends, like Harrington's M, on your stack size relative to the blinds. The only differnece I note is that it widens the hand selection and asks you to play more aggressively. And like any formula, it's only a basic primer, and beyond that it's up to your skill, reads and the tournament & hand situations to determine how you will play from there.

[copernicus 0]

I agree with your first point ("effective stacks" and all), though Snyder makes a compelling case for the advantage a large stack gives you. I don't agree with your second paragraph (though maybe I'm not understanding it) since he does advise playing differently at different stages ("crunch time" is a big deal in his book). The third paragraph, I think Snyder would strongly disagree and say that if you play tight early, you are giving up chances to use skill to outplay the other players.

I havent gotten quite as far as "crunch time" so maybe Ill change my mind about that, but from what Ive read in other threads here, there is discussion at the PTF site about adjusting patience factors later in tourney. If that is correct, that supports my take that it is incomplete in its current form.As far as skill goes, perhaps we are using "skill" differently. I am referring primarily to post-flop skills of hand reading and bet sizing. When you play fast based on hands in EP and play fast based on position when you have it you are minimizing those other skills, because your fast play leads to fewer calls and shallower remaining stacks post flop. While it isnt as much a "push and fold" strategy as Kill Phil in the early stages, it degenerates into that pretty quickly in the tournaments its designed for. Kill Phil is the essence of long ball, and limiting post flop play. The biggest difference between PTF (as far as Ive read it) and Kill Phil is the added dimension of stack play, and I havent read that section in enough detail yet to comment on whether its really anything new.

[Zach6668 513]

Cop,I think it's pretty important to note that while a lot of people get all up in arms, claiming it not to be "poker", etc, preflop "skill" is VERY important in pretty much every single tournament. Maybe moreso in online tournies, especially turbos, but I somewhat resent that you seperate the word "skill" to mean purely postflop play. In my opinion, beating the turbo SNGs take a certain skill. Postflop play is pretty rare in the later stages, but it taks a skill to beat them, nonetheless.- Zach

[SlackerInc 0]

Cop,I think it's pretty important to note that while a lot of people get all up in arms, claiming it not to be "poker", etc, preflop "skill" is VERY important in pretty much every single tournament. Maybe moreso in online tournies, especially turbos, but I somewhat resent that you seperate the word "skill" to mean purely postflop play. In my opinion, beating the turbo SNGs take a certain skill. Postflop play is pretty rare in the later stages, but it taks a skill to beat them, nonetheless.- Zach

I feel ya. There are a lot of postflop snobs out there (not saying Cop is one), like, uh, Negreanu for instance (lol...sometimes I forget this is his site). DN grumbles about "move in specialists" and implies that they are robotic in their decisionmaking. But Harrington actually says just the opposite: that postflop decisions are more automatic, while preflop skill requires more feel and nuance. (But others have called him a preflop specialist.) I think, again, "the truth may lie in between".

[Zach6668 513]

I think, again, "the truth may lie in between".

Well that is certainly true, and I'm not advocating one side or the other, just saying that both should be recognized, rather than dismissing one of them.

[SlackerInc 0]

Well that is certainly true, and I'm not advocating one side or the other, just saying that both should be recognized, rather than dismissing one of them.

Couldn't agree more. But I'm sort of surprised by the staunch defence of aggressive preflop NL play, coming from a guy who says LHE is his preferred game! Wouldn't that bias you more toward seeing flops? Or do I completely misunderstand the LHE game? I've played fairly little of it, and only for very small stakes ($2/4).

[copernicus 0]

Cop,I think it's pretty important to note that while a lot of people get all up in arms, claiming it not to be "poker", etc, preflop "skill" is VERY important in pretty much every single tournament. Maybe moreso in online tournies, especially turbos, but I somewhat resent that you seperate the word "skill" to mean purely postflop play. In my opinion, beating the turbo SNGs take a certain skill. Postflop play is pretty rare in the later stages, but it taks a skill to beat them, nonetheless.- Zach

Poor wording on my part after a long day at work. I wasn't implying that post-flop skills are the only skills, or the only ones that matter, just that those are the skills I was referring to as being de-emphasized by fast play. That said, I'll continue with something that may increase your resentment from "somewhat". Most of the pre-flop skills in the context of the late stages of any tournament are relatively formulaic and easy to learn. They really come down to a good handle on the "hot and cold" equity of hands given however many players are left, a decent read of who is playing tight enough to take advantage of, and stack awareness. Ie when post flop play is limited, pre-flop play also becomes more straightforward.

[Zach6668 513]

Couldn't agree more. But I'm sort of surprised by the staunch defence of aggressive preflop NL play, coming from a guy who says LHE is his preferred game! Wouldn't that bias you more toward seeing flops? Or do I completely misunderstand the LHE game? I've played fairly little of it, and only for very small stakes ($2/4).

Preflop is probably the most important street in LHE.Regardless though, I'm defending the PF play, since I crush the turbo SNGs on Stars (smallish sample size, mind you).

[copernicus 0]

I feel ya. There are a lot of postflop snobs out there (not saying Cop is one), like, uh, Negreanu for instance (lol...sometimes I forget this is his site). DN grumbles about "move in specialists" and implies that they are robotic in their decisionmaking. But Harrington actually says just the opposite: that postflop decisions are more automatic, while preflop skill requires more feel and nuance. (But others have called him a preflop specialist.) I think, again, "the truth may lie in between".

The truth is almost always somewhere in between, but Harrington's belief that postflop decisions are more automatic is the direct result of a pre-flop style that is relatively tight to open, especially OOP, and a very large gap. It also depends a lot on other players being similarly tight. With the variety of pre-flop styles in use by very skilled players (skilled both pre and post flop) I think he underrates post flop skills, looking at them in the context of most of his career, not 21st century play.

[hblask 1]

The third paragraph, I think Snyder would strongly disagree and say that if you play tight early, you are giving up chances to use skill to outplay the other players.

If nothing else, Snyder seems to be forcing people to think about and put words to things that they usually don't...In the end, it seems to be a race between "waiting for a monster hand" and "I need a suckout NOW". In turbos, there is no waiting for a monster. Play the first playable opportunity. Snyder expands the common definition of what that is and what to do, but is basically not much different from Harrington. In slower tournaments, and including normal online tournaments, optimism rules for the first hour. "Waiting for a monster" is still a viable option, because you usually will get 1-5 big hands in the first hour. They don't always hold up, or when they do, they don't always pay off, but you get a couple shots. After that, the race begins. You *MAY* get a monster, but it's no longer a good bet. Again, I like to think in graphs. Graph two lines: one is the "chance that a monster hand will rescue me" line, the other is the "chance of sucking out with a lessor hand or taking a pot with aggression and no cards". Your chance of sucking out with lessor hands remains fairly constant for most of a tournament. Your chance of being rescued by a monster before the blinds kill you falls constantly. I think in the end, that's what M is about. It seems to me Snyder is just moving Harrington's zones up a couple notches. Not a major change, I guess, but I think it is correct. The problem I've always had with Harrington is that if you wait until your M is 5-7 before you make a move, even a double-up doesn't help much -- unless you hit a monster right after that, you will be right back in trouble in 10 minutes. If you double up when your M is 12 or 15, though, now you've got a lot of life and don't need a miracle and can survive a few losses. Harrington is jumping from big miracle to big miracle. Snyder is maintaing a regular pace of smaller miracles. If one fails you, then you are in Harrington-land, and you're no worse off than if you hadn't taken a shot. Are your chances of two small suckouts higher than one big one?

[SlackerInc 0]

Here's a great example of a "Snyder play" (a play I would not have made before reading his book, but now do routinely, with quite a bit of success):PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t30 (7 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)MP2 (t2010)Hero (t2105)Button (t4150)SB (t530)BB (t1850)UTG (t1340)MP1 (t1515)Preflop: Hero is CO with T, 6. 3 folds, Hero raises to t90, 1 fold, SB calls t75, BB calls t60.Flop: (t270) 8, J, A(3 players)SB checks, BB checks, Hero bets t210, SB folds, BB folds.Final Pot: t480Results: No showdown. Hero wins t480. FWIW...ETA: I think this also shows his "formula" is not at all concentrated preflop, except when stacks are short. A big reason he goes into his player types, and emphasises position, is so you can have a sense of when to go for the big c-bet and when to back off (based on how the flop looks, whether the player is an "acemaster" who probably played some ace and won't let it go now that an ace flopped...or a "flushmaster" who might be chasing a flush if the board is suited...etc.).

[SlackerInc 0]

Copernicus didn't post it here, but at the tourney chat he said that the previous hand I posted was nothing too unique to Snyder (attempting a blind steal from the cutoff, then c-betting). So, okay, fair enough. I think this next one should definitely qualify. I certainly would never have dreamed of making this play (or that it could possibly work, especially in a low-buyin online tourney) until I read his book:PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t20 (9 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)MP3 (t1830)CO (t1540)Hero (t1410)SB (t1480)BB (t1500)UTG (t1500)UTG+1 (t1500)MP1 (t1240)MP2 (t1500)Preflop: Hero is Button with 2, A. UTG calls t20, UTG+1 raises to t100, 4 folds, Hero calls t100, 2 folds, UTG folds.Flop: (t250) 8, 8, 2(2 players)UTG+1 bets t160, Hero calls t160.Turn: (t570) K(2 players)UTG+1 bets t400, Hero raises to t1150, UTG+1 folds.Final Pot: t2120Results: No showdown. Hero wins t2120.I guess technically I didn't call with ATC (a suited ace is a little better than that); and I did catch a piece of the flop. But my opponent didn't know that! Had I done the exact same thing with 9-3os, the result would have been the same.

[cubbybri 0]

I really have to get this book as it is all the talk anymore. I have skimmed through twice on my trips to Chapters so I have question.This is incomplete info from book so let me see what I get on this hand.You are on button so you call any standard bet. This one was 5x which I am assuming is standard at this table?This is more the part I don't get. He shows strength by cb and you call. I can see this as this flop likely did not hit him(pocket pair possible).Now a K hits and you steal. Obviously you are represnting an 8 here and I see the fold but how confident are you that they will not call? Or does it matter because you are just playing fast with position?Why take it on turn when they show strength when I suppose you can do same thing on river since a K didn't scare you?Just cannot remember what Snyder is saying in book that relates to the call flop and push turn. Again from just skimming I have read front end of this book much more in depth than the back half.Thanks

[ramenandeggs 0]

Copernicus didn't post it here, but at the tourney chat he said that the previous hand I posted was nothing too unique to Snyder (attempting a blind steal from the cutoff, then c-betting). So, okay, fair enough. I think this next one should definitely qualify. I certainly would never have dreamed of making this play (or that it could possibly work, especially in a low-buyin online tourney) until I read his book:PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t20 (9 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)MP3 (t1830)CO (t1540)Hero (t1410)SB (t1480)BB (t1500)UTG (t1500)UTG+1 (t1500)MP1 (t1240)MP2 (t1500)Preflop: Hero is Button with 2, A. UTG calls t20, UTG+1 raises to t100, 4 folds, Hero calls t100, 2 folds, UTG folds.Flop: (t250) 8, 8, 2(2 players)UTG+1 bets t160, Hero calls t160.Turn: (t570) K(2 players)UTG+1 bets t400, Hero raises to t1150, UTG+1 folds.Final Pot: t2120Results: No showdown. Hero wins t2120.I guess technically I didn't call with ATC (a suited ace is a little better than that); and I did catch a piece of the flop. But my opponent didn't know that! Had I done the exact same thing with 9-3os, the result would have been the same.

Are you sure you weren't just lucky he didn't have anything?

[SlackerInc 0]

I really have to get this book as it is all the talk anymore. I have skimmed through twice on my trips to Chapters so I have question.This is incomplete info from book so let me see what I get on this hand.You are on button so you call any standard bet. This one was 5x which I am assuming is standard at this table?This is more the part I don't get. He shows strength by cb and you call. I can see this as this flop likely did not hit him(pocket pair possible).Now a K hits and you steal. Obviously you are represnting an 8 here and I see the fold but how confident are you that they will not call? Or does it matter because you are just playing fast with position?

Check out p. 92 where he is still talking about playing without looking at your cards. After you have called a standard raise from the button (looking now, it's supposed to be up to 4xBB, but with a bb of only 20, I stretched it), he says if your opponent makes a "standard don't-give-up-the-lead bet" (what we'd call a c-bet), you should call. "The reason you just call is to try and get him to make another of those don't-give-up-the-lead bets on the turn, so you can get even more chips out of him." It's high octane stuff, a high wire act you might say, no doubt about it. And yeah, to answer ramen's Q, I was lucky he didn't have anything. But the Snyder philosophy is that you've got to go for it in situations like these, to build a big chip stack; and if it doesn't work out, you go on to another tourney. You'll go out early more often, but you'll final table more often as well which more than makes up for it (that's the theory/assertion anyway). I think he's got a point, which really relates to what hblask was saying in his OP. I have been playing around with 45-man SNGs, the slowest structure PS seems to have available other than for really high buyins or our private ones (that is, ten minute blind levels). Just tonight I had a common situation: I was the #1 chip stack with 35 players left, stayed in the top five for quite a while, lost a big hand and dropped to below average, then soon powered back up again with fast play and was in the top five at the one hour break. But with still half the field left, my M was about 10 and the average was more like 7. I ended up going out in 18th place without making any critical mistake, really--it just got too "crapshootish" when we were still pretty far from the money. So as I see it, you really need to take chances early to build a giant stack if you want to avoid this. I mean, so what if you have fun being a big stack for an hour? You can't sit there and play solid, because as the blinds eat at you, other people get knocked out and the average stack rises. But it's actually too late to play the kind of deeper stack fast play that I illustrated in this hand--people are too desperate to be bluffed that way postflop for the most part (and stacks just aren't deep enough for those plays--it's got to be all preflop gambling).

[cubbybri 0]

I guess it goes by read but he(you, I'm just going on your knowledge of book stm) is saying in the majority of cases, if you are playing the aggressor in position, you should call any standard cb on flop and then push on the turn.I can see what he is saying but in the hand you showed I don't know if I like pushing when a K pops off on turn. I don't like the flop call but I understand why it is happening.In these tourneys I do play tighter than Snyder as I do not take shots opening with ATC in the last three seats. I do take shots in the last four seats with less than premium cards( little lesser card from third and fourth last and even lesser from last two seats)early to see tables reaction to them and judge what size bets may take down the blinds. I guess, like everything else we read, we should take things not word for word when we play and try to experiment a little with the concepts within our own game.I do think you were lucky this hand worked out but that's the purpose of Snyder's book I suppose. Get lucky with junk hands early rather than be forced to get lucky later. I just believe(again, I gotta get this book since many of these concepts I have only skimmed across) for most people who are knew, they should start out with tight is right. Once you get some experience, you can throw in SOME of the looser concepts given from books. Ouside of that, you are purely relying on luck and no longer on skill.Maybe we need to start compring the ROI's of those playing closer to Harrington to those playing closer to Snyder. It may be the ROIs are similar with Harrington having more ITM's and Snyder's having more top 3 finishes).I like some of Snyder's concepts in situational areas but that kinda goes with what Harrington teaches anyway. Harrington will make plays with any two cards when the situation seems profitable and exploiting his tight image.It just seems that with this Snyder strategy, you leave it all up to hoping your opponents do not have a hand and exploiting your loosER image when you finally hit a hand.This is a lot of blabber, I am just not convinced at this point.I do appreciate all the info though Slacker, it is really making me think more on how I can exploit the tighties and how others may look at playing tournies. I just don't think I could ever wrap my head around playing that wild and be happy with my play as a skilled player when I bust. I guess if I won a tourney or two with this strat, I may think differently.

[Zach6668 513]

Such an expensive bluff.I think the point of calling on the flop is to reevalute on the turn, and take the pot away from him then if need be.In this case, villain bet > 2/3 of the pot on the turn. This is where I give up, unless I'm super deep or something.

[ramenandeggs 0]

so there's a lot more positional bluffing involved? it smells like trouble for a lot of the losing players who already bluff too much. (I'm a losing player that probably doesn't bluff enough, used to be limited to c-betting) where's the balance in all this? certainly it can't be profitable if you do it every time you're granted the hijack/co/button, even against the right "character" type. you won't always be able to take him out before he finds out what you're doing. when i visited the ptf forum, they're saying tight is not right. i used to think to each their own, i mean, Harrington himself has still had quite some successes in recent years but you guys were discounting them as luckbox events and how anyone w/some kind of skill can still get stacked by the fish pool. i make moves outside of Harrington's guidelines now but I'm generally conservative, is this the wrong way to go at it? what if you're table is really active? there's not much of a chance you can get people off their hands since someone will catch a piece of something. i think sitting on your hands still has some merit.

[SlackerInc 0]

I'm going to add numbers in brackets to the three points of yours that I quoted:

[1] I do think you were lucky this hand worked out but that's the purpose of Snyder's book I suppose. Get lucky with junk hands early rather than be forced to get lucky later. [...][2] Maybe we need to start compring the ROI's of those playing closer to Harrington to those playing closer to Snyder. It may be the ROIs are similar with Harrington having more ITM's and Snyder's having more top 3 finishes).[...][3] It just seems that with this Snyder strategy, you leave it all up to hoping your opponents do not have a hand and exploiting your loosER image when you finally hit a hand.

My problem with playing this style consistently is that I really don't like playing big MTTs, which this is designed for. Maybe if they were super, super slow; but I like being in a situation where the stacks are still relatively deep when you get shorthanded, and where you don't get bounced around from table to table, so I really dig STTs. And while some of these concepts are still valid in that arena, it's less so.[1] That's exactly right. And when you wait until later, people are just so much less willing to fold (because they are also desperate at that point), so you have to get lucky with the actual cards you hold. Whereas if you have a bigger stack than most everyone else, you don't have to get into desperation situations and you can survive an all-in or two gone bad.[2] I'd definitely like to see this done by someone without a vested interest. Snyder claims that it's not even close as to which earns more money over the long run.[3] That's not quite the case. Since experimenting with this strategy, I've found that people either (a) do not have a hand more often than you'd think; or (B) when it's relatively early and you show a lot of strength, they are willing to lay down strong but non-monster hands (and often, even when they are getting pretty good pot odds--they just don't want to play for "all their chips" despite being pot-committed in reality). This is even more true in live play, I think (which is why I really want to go try this at a big live MTT). And the play does not appear as loose as you might think, unless people are paying very close attention. In the blinds and EP, you fold almost all the time (unless you are short). MP you only play if it's been folded to you or you have good cards. LP you only play with bad cards if it's been folded to you, unless you are on that one exact button seat (not even in the CO). So since these situations have to be just right, I've actually found my stats going down to seeing <30% of flops. I don't think that produces a terribly loose image.And Zach, you may have a point that I went for it vs. bets that were a little bigger than what Snyder would advise making moves against. It is also partly about reads, though, and I just had the sense that villain was c-betting the whole way (or maybe had a middle pocket pair).

[cubbybri 0]

VPIP<30%. Interesting. That is usually where I sit in tournies anyway. I think my style of play Preflop is much like Snyder's although I do not play ATCs in those positions. I'll say pop with a Q9s in MP3 to open or maybe a 75o on the button but I do not go as far as ATC. I also admit that I am not the most protective of the button as maybe I should. Early in MTT's my VPIP is usually under 20 as many will be flailing chips and calling anything not giving me a chance at times to open raise but by early mid I find I accumulate the most chips and my VPIP can get about the 40 mark. Mid late and late I'm all over the place depending on my situation.I guess it's more the button calling and the post flop play that I still need to get my head around, maybe not to use myself but to understand Snyder's concepts and to pick off who may be employing those tactics.