The Poker Tournament Formula

[ChrisRichey 1]

Hey SI, is there a way you (or anybody else with this book) could paste the patience factor chart here for me. I downloaded the spreadsheet, and was just wanting to compare a few different mtts and sngs. Thanks!

[SlackerInc 0]

Hey SI, is there a way you (or anybody else with this book) could paste the patience factor chart here for me. I downloaded the spreadsheet, and was just wanting to compare a few different mtts and sngs. Thanks!

I'm not sure which chart you mean. It looks to me like to estimate a given tourney's PF, you would need to go through the math in that whole chapter. But there is a chart with some examples--I'll throw out a couple:--PokerStars $109 (t1500 chips; t10/20 starting blinds; 15 minute levels) has a patience factor of 7.75, meaning a skill level in the low end of the 5 ("slower, requires much more skill") range.--Full Tilt $55 (t1500; t15/30; 10 min.) has a PF of 7.54, barely above the skill level 4 range ("medium fast, requires more skill").Seems strange that their PFs are so close together; the Full Tilt tourney must have some other factor like an extra intermediary blind level or something.HTHETA: Snyder says everything about his book is designed to apply to four tables or more, except the section on single table satellites. He only mentions SNGs once, briefly, saying that because you are so close to the money to begin with, a patient/tight strategy is more advisable than his aggressive fast-MTT strategy.

[ChrisRichey 1]

When I said sngs, I meant the 90 and 180 person ones. I already have the spreadsheet that does the math for you, I just am needing the thing to tell me what the different PF outcomes mean. Thanks!

[CobaltBlue 662]

When I said sngs, I meant the 90 and 180 person ones. I already have the spreadsheet that does the math for you, I just am needing the thing to tell me what the different PF outcomes mean. Thanks!

I just noticed it the other day, but there's another page to that spreadsheet. So look for the tabs at the bottom...and click the first one. It'll give you a comparison of the skill levels.

[hblask 1]

Sorry to join this discussion so late... I don't have much time to read, and I don't have much time to play MTTs. Having said that, I like his idea of playing with your cards covered up in cheap tournaments, just to break your brain out of its rigid ways and quit worrying about your cards. I've heard pros suggest this before, but never took it seriously. He does a nice job of explaining why you should.I'm not all the way through the book, but I've played a couple MTTs based on his positional advice, and was *extremely* surprised at how well it worked. This book seems to have found an opening in the HoH tournament world. I hope it doesn't catch on like HoH, because then, of course, it will stop working.

[SlackerInc 0]

I hope it doesn't catch on like HoH, because then, of course, it will stop working.

Great point!

[hblask 1]

OK, I'm thinking about this some more.... so I wanted to get feedback. The difference between HoH and Snyder seems to be that Snyder says "if it's a fast tournament, play fast regardless of your immediate situation." Harrington says "look at your situation in each hand, and decide how to play." Both seem to have a lot of merit, but before I heard about the Snyder book, an idea was forming in my head that is hard to describe, but seems to support Snyder. Basically, the idea I had is that you imagine a line from your current situation to winning the tournament, and picture in your head what that looks like. Call it the "win line". A rough draft of that is what the average chip count would look like at any point in the tournament, but I'll try to explain below why that's not a very good estimate.Then, based on your win line, you decide how you need to play. There is a zone below your line where you feel comfortable, but once you get below that, you are in ultra-aggressive mode. Harrington says this is based soley on M. The reason why I think Snyder may be a better representation is because the blinds don't go up linearly, so based on Harrington, you can find yourself in good shape, then 15 minutes later, oops, now I'm in ultra-aggressive mode. Snyder seems to be saying "think ahead, look where the line is going, not just the current spot." It would be interesting to plot the percent increase in blinds at each level vs typical average chipstack vs knockout rate (players remaining) at each point in a typical online tournament. I suspect it would go in fits and starts. The question seems to become, is it better to wait until you NEED to suckout (a la Harrington), or do you want to try to suckout a little bit all along so that push-or-fold mode can be avoided unless the cards (and your opponents) just refuse to cooperate. Snyder's patience factor looks to me like it is putting a number on this question.Where Snyder seems incomplete is that he just computes patience factor using starting stacks and the blind levels that will eat it up. But there can be vast difference in structure AFTER those first few levels. To do a full analysis, you would probably need to compute the "win line" for the whole tournament. I thnk average chipstack would probably be weak, because if you've ever paid attention, at times average stack is pretty comfortable, other times it's in danger, and it can go back and forth several times in a tournament, depending on a lot of factors. Therefore, your "win line" may be above the average chip stack or below the average chip stack depending on how quickly people are dropping off (and affecting average stack) and the upcoming blind level changes in relation to those factors.Maybe the answer is a dynamic patience factor, based on current chipstack and the blind structure for the next XX minutes, where XX is a number that eats up your current stack OR where good solid poker can win out over suckouts. With a low M, as per Harrington, it is obviously "get aggressive now" time. I just think it's possible to need to be in aggressive mode at certain points in the tournament even when your M is comfortable by Harrington standards, and your chipstack is decent compared to the other players. Maybe it's your Super-M, where it is based on the next 100 hands (or whatever makes sense). An M of 15 in a tournament with 30 minute blinds is a lot different than an M of 15 in a tournament with 3 minute blinds. Snyder seems to have taken a stab at quantifying this, whereas Harrington just sort of says "think about that in certain situations."Anyway, that's a lot of babbling... I hope I gave people something to think about and comment upon. I may start to collect some data on this to see what the "win line" would look like....

[copernicus 0]

OK, I'm thinking about this some more.... so I wanted to get feedback. The difference between HoH and Snyder seems to be that Snyder says "if it's a fast tournament, play fast regardless of your immediate situation." Harrington says "look at your situation in each hand, and decide how to play." Both seem to have a lot of merit, but before I heard about the Snyder book, an idea was forming in my head that is hard to describe, but seems to support Snyder. Basically, the idea I had is that you imagine a line from your current situation to winning the tournament, and picture in your head what that looks like. Call it the "win line". A rough draft of that is what the average chip count would look like at any point in the tournament, but I'll try to explain below why that's not a very good estimate.Then, based on your win line, you decide how you need to play. There is a zone below your line where you feel comfortable, but once you get below that, you are in ultra-aggressive mode. Harrington says this is based soley on M. The reason why I think Snyder may be a better representation is because the blinds don't go up linearly, so based on Harrington, you can find yourself in good shape, then 15 minutes later, oops, now I'm in ultra-aggressive mode. Snyder seems to be saying "think ahead, look where the line is going, not just the current spot." It would be interesting to plot the percent increase in blinds at each level vs typical average chipstack vs knockout rate (players remaining) at each point in a typical online tournament. I suspect it would go in fits and starts. The question seems to become, is it better to wait until you NEED to suckout (a la Harrington), or do you want to try to suckout a little bit all along so that push-or-fold mode can be avoided unless the cards (and your opponents) just refuse to cooperate. Snyder's patience factor looks to me like it is putting a number on this question.Where Snyder seems incomplete is that he just computes patience factor using starting stacks and the blind levels that will eat it up. But there can be vast difference in structure AFTER those first few levels. To do a full analysis, you would probably need to compute the "win line" for the whole tournament. I thnk average chipstack would probably be weak, because if you've ever paid attention, at times average stack is pretty comfortable, other times it's in danger, and it can go back and forth several times in a tournament, depending on a lot of factors. Therefore, your "win line" may be above the average chip stack or below the average chip stack depending on how quickly people are dropping off (and affecting average stack) and the upcoming blind level changes in relation to those factors.Maybe the answer is a dynamic patience factor, based on current chipstack and the blind structure for the next XX minutes, where XX is a number that eats up your current stack OR where good solid poker can win out over suckouts. With a low M, as per Harrington, it is obviously "get aggressive now" time. I just think it's possible to need to be in aggressive mode at certain points in the tournament even when your M is comfortable by Harrington standards, and your chipstack is decent compared to the other players. Maybe it's your Super-M, where it is based on the next 100 hands (or whatever makes sense). An M of 15 in a tournament with 30 minute blinds is a lot different than an M of 15 in a tournament with 3 minute blinds. Snyder seems to have taken a stab at quantifying this, whereas Harrington just sort of says "think about that in certain situations."Anyway, that's a lot of babbling... I hope I gave people something to think about and comment upon. I may start to collect some data on this to see what the "win line" would look like....

If there is enough data to plot credible data on "win lines" it might lend credence to either the "accumulators" or the "survivors", because I think thats where you are ultimately headed. There will either be a preponderence of win lines that jump out well above average and then continue to build reasonably steadily (other than recoveries from set backs), a preponderence of lines that kind of track average, and maybe another group that drops down early and makes a very steep climb at the end.The problem is I that I think there is too much information that is needed to interpret any given line to be relatively easy to analyze.I.e. my guess is that win lines are random walks around average stack at least until the stage where there is a monster stack or two. Also you might want to look at average stack/cost per round as the "proxy win line", rather than straight average stack.I havent finished Snyder yet, but I got the impression from an early chapter that there were adjustments to the "patience factor" that took into account later increases and tournaments that "speed up" later. If not I would think a good proxy for such a factor would be to take the average stack at intervals of say every 3 or 4 levels and the blinds at that level, and use the basic patience factor approach. You would need some empirical data to get those average stacks, but that shouldnt be hard to gather for online tournaments.

[CobaltBlue 662]

Henry, I think that's an excellent point, and it's something that I felt needed consideration. Snyder's formula seems to provide an excellent analysis of "base/initial" tournament speed, but it doesn't take the later acceleration effect into account enough. My first thought was similar to copernicus...take the average stack at any given point and recalculate as if that was the starting chips and the new level as the first level. I'd think one could mess around with the numbers and calculations enough where this could be done in a more automatic fashion. If I get up some initiative, I might give it a go when I return from spring break.

[Highlow16 0]

Having not read the book yet I really cant give much insight beyond what i have read here and in zolotows article about it in cardplayer. But why would not knowing something stop me from forming an opinion? I think his concepts are interesting and I think probably can be applied to a degree here and there along with other concepts we understand about tournament strategy. I dont like the idea of "always do this". Poker is situational not absolute. I like the idea of opening up your calling requirements in position and basically throwing the gap concept out the window. Alot of extremely sucessful players do this, and Ive been calling raises with trash lately in position to experiment. Anyone remember prtypsux post about a year ago about calling a raise with 73o in position in a big pot against Bax? Ive also heard daniel talk about getting ahead of the structure in small buy in events. Obviously he is doing something to adjust. Also, I know this guy is a math/blackjack wiz, but poker doesnt translate the same skills necessarily. In blackjack there is a correct play in a given hand and thats it, again poker doesnt work that way. What kind of results has this guy had? Anyone know? If he hasnt had any then its like having a 30 handicap give you golf lessons.

[TwoFourOffsuit 0]

First of all, GREAT stuff to bring up, hblask! The variance in tournament speed as the blinds change is actually a topic of discussion on the forum for his book and it is definitely a concept he is thinking about.I remember the general card strategies change as your stack, relative to the size of the blinds, goes up and down. Beyond that, as with any poker strategy, it's really up to the player to make reads and pick up other tells and indicators to figure out when to make moves and diverge from the stated approach.Also, Highlow, you bring up a good question about his credibility. One chapter in the book indicates a graph of his losses and wins in his first 75 tournaments. The graph shows a zig zagging increase upward all the way, slight downward trends followed by huge cashes that net a profit. He cashed in 14 of his first 75 tourneys. He also still plays tournaments to this day, though lately he has experimented with slower, higher buy-in tourneys and their satellites to develop his game there.

[SlackerInc 0]

This is such a great thread. Very intriguing points, hblask. One of the things I would like to discuss is something Coperncus and I got into in another thread recently. He said that a lot of people believe that HoH advises going into push/fold mode too early. Yet Snyder advises getting into that mode much, much earlier. What do you guys think? I welcomed this advice as I had previously had a lot of trouble in the lower end of the Yellow Zone (where you're not supposed to push according to Harrington, but it's bombs away per Snyder). And he advises some seemingly crazy pushes: For instance, with an M of 7-13, in any position, "raise or reraise all in with 77 to AA, AK, AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ, KT, and QJ". And in late position with the same M, "if first in, raise all in with any two cards" (p. 164).-Alan

[CobaltBlue 662]

This is such a great thread. Very intriguing points, hblask. One of the things I would like to discuss is something Coperncus and I got into in another thread recently. He said that a lot of people believe that HoH advises going into push/fold mode too early. Yet Snyder advises getting into that mode much, much earlier. What do you guys think? I welcomed this advice as I had previously had a lot of trouble in the lower end of the Yellow Zone (where you're not supposed to push according to Harrington, but it's bombs away per Snyder). And he advises some seemingly crazy pushes: For instance, with an M of 7-13, in any position, "raise or reraise all in with 77 to AA, AK, AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ, KT, and QJ". And in late position with the same M, "if first in, raise all in with any two cards" (p. 164).-Alan

I still haven't implemented this advice. I will say that after getting too liberal about not pushing (just putting in a normal raise w/ M's of 5-7), I've started realizing that I need to push a little bit bigger. Still not sure I can go for Snyder's numbers though.

[hblask 1]

This is such a great thread. Very intriguing points, hblask. One of the things I would like to discuss is something Coperncus and I got into in another thread recently. He said that a lot of people believe that HoH advises going into push/fold mode too early. Yet Snyder advises getting into that mode much, much earlier. What do you guys think? I welcomed this advice as I had previously had a lot of trouble in the lower end of the Yellow Zone (where you're not supposed to push according to Harrington, but it's bombs away per Snyder). And he advises some seemingly crazy pushes: For instance, with an M of 7-13, in any position, "raise or reraise all in with 77 to AA, AK, AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ, KT, and QJ". And in late position with the same M, "if first in, raise all in with any two cards" (p. 164).-Alan

I'm with Snyder on this. I have been one of the tightest players in poker history, and I tended to bubble most of the time. So I opened up my game a little. And limped into the money. And opened it up a little more. And busted out sooner or got a little deeper. I think if I loosen up more, this trend will continue. I think Snyder's advice increases your swings but improves your return, especially on an hourly basis. Limping into the money takes forever and pays little. Bust out early and get on to the next one, or give yourself a fighting chance for your ability to play a role when the cards do come along. Fewer minutes played, more dollars.The problem with Harrington is if you wait as long as he says to really turn it up, even a double-up doesn't buy you that much. All it does is puts you in a position to either hit some cards or wait until you are in trouble and need another double up. I always feel like I'm clinging to life support, trying for the desperation double-up until I get a decent run of cards. I don't know about you guys, but I don't get good cards often enough to base a tournament on waiting for them. And if I do get my 2 good hands per hour, and everyone folds to my raise, where am I then? So you have to weigh the issue of "what are the odds that I will get good cards AND will get paid off for them?" versus "what are the odds that this move with marginal cards or junk will cripple me?" And the more tournaments I play, it looks like making moves is the lower risk. They don't have to pay off all that often to make a profit, because they are so easy to let go of and tend to pay off big. And even bad hands typically have a 1 in 3 chance of winning against random hands.

[DonMcCoy 0]

I can only add this at the moment as I ended up skimming through a lot of this book while at Chapter's but it has been a few months ago now.The patience factor I would need a refresher on but I do recall and have used the Chips-Cards Position advice a bit and it makes sense to me.Cards-Chips-Position is the poker version of playing Rock-Paper-Scissors. Rock is your chips(easy to remember). Paper is your cards. This leaves Scissors to equal your position.When it comes down to how you wish to play your hand, you need to know what advantages you have and just like rock paper, scissors, there is cycle to it.Cards beat chips, Chips beat position, Position beats cards.I hope I have that right.I found this just reinforced things when playing and it's just simple to remember quickly(especially the online game).The patience factor had a little too much math for me to recall from memory now but it is a formula based on I think starting chips, speed of levels and the amount the blinds move up(could be other factors like number of players, etc). The formula spits out a number and you use that number to decide the way you need to play.SHort blinds, low chips, looser and more aggressive.Long BLinds, lotsa chips, -tighter or more ring game style.Again, stuff that most already know but this gives a more formulmatic way of figuring your style of play.This is recall info, but I hope it may stir some discussion. I may run out and get that book now if there will be some discusssion on it.

"Cards-Chips-Position is the poker version of playing Rock-Paper-Scissors. Rock is your chips(easy to remember). Paper is your cards. This leaves Scissors to equal your position.When it comes down to how you wish to play your hand, you need to know what advantages you have and just like rock paper, scissors, there is cycle to it.Cards beat chips, Chips beat position, Position beats cards."Is this formula only good in fast paced tournaments, or can it be applied to all tournaments? I find this VERY eye opening. It's like the day I read Phil Gordon's Rule of 4 and 2. I think I'll buy this book.

[Yahkin 0]

wth

[DonMcCoy 0]

wth

Yeah, I don't know how that happened. Sorry!