[Mason Malmuth]

I hope this is my last post in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
It is true that Arnold's basic strategy says that, with a competitive chip stack in late position and no one else in, "Raise with any two cards" (p. 157). However, he qualifies that on p. 84, in his chapter on position basic strategy, with the comment: "Although the basic position strategy is to raise, it is generally best to mix up your play on the button with raises and calls." He explains that the reason for mixing it up is for camo--to disguise your constant theft. I do not disagree that a small pair might be one of the better hands with which to call instead of raise to mix up your play.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this shows some confusion about no limit. You don't limp in in this spot to mix up your play. You limp with the small pair when the stacks are deep to maximize expectation. That's because in deep stack no limit (which would be the case when all the Ms are high) an important component of a hand's value is its ability to extract a lot of money from your opponent on the later streets if you get a very good flop. See No Limit Hold 'em: Theory and Practice by David Sklansky and Ed Miller for more discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
The reason the basic strategy is to raise in a fast tournament rather than call is because you are too unlikely to get a set with those small pairs frequently enough to get the return on investment you need to keep up with the rapidly declining M. You are unlikely to get a set because sets occur too infrequently, and in fast tournaments you simply do not have the same time luxury to wait for trapping hands. Because the blinds are going up so quickly, you have to have a better chance of making money now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite but this is getting better. The reason you raise with the small pair in this spot is that the Ms (both yours and your potential opponents) won't be high enough to make it worthwhile to try to trap your opponent. Put another way, that component of getting lots of money on the later streets when the flop comes right won't be there.

[ QUOTE ]
The point Arnold makes in The Poker Tournament Formula is that it is wrong in a fast tournament to sit there playing conservatively with the thought that you have time to trap that guy. The reason it is wrong is because you don't have time to trap anyone. What he says is (p. 234): "For you to sit there thinking, 'Wait until I have a really big hand--then I'll show them!' is just a fantasy. By the time you get that big hand--if you get that big hand--you won't have enough chips left to show anybody anything. You'll just be the short stack that got lucky in time to double up, so the sharks can start taking bites out of you again."

[/ QUOTE ]

It's frustrating debating with you because your arguments seem to completely ignore what I have written. So when you say
[ QUOTE ]
What he says is (p. 234): "For you to sit there thinking, 'Wait until I have a really big hand--then I'll show them!' is just a fantasy. By the time you get that big hand--if you get that big hand--you won't have enough chips left to show anybody anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

you ignore the fact that I have posted more than once a quote from Harrington II that says the exact same thing. The difference is that Harrington is not basing it on what you call tournament speed. He's basing it on M. And just to prove my point, here's the quote again from page 158:

[ QUOTE ]
At this point, you might well wonder how players of each style approach the problems of the endgame. The answer is surprising to many people: No matter which style you naturally play, your approach to endgame problems will be very similar. The rising blinds and your shrinking stack size will force you to play in a super-aggressive way. Players who naturally play in a super-aggressive style tend to adapt more naturally and quickly to endgame problems, which I think is the main reason their tournament results tend to be better than players whose natural style is tighter. But by and large, the problems of the endgame tend to be problems of technique, not style. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no conservative players at the tail end of tournaments. Someone who’s waiting for premium starting hands with a short stack isn’t playing conservatively, he’s just playing badly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have stated throughout this thread that Snyder and Harrington will agree on most situations, but not all, on the best strategy. That's because in your fast tournaments, the Ms will usually be low. I don't know how else to state this, yet you keep arguing that we are saying something else.

Harrington does not advise to play as you state over and over. I don't either. That's why I say that The Poker Tournament Formula will improve the expectation of most who read and study it.

[ QUOTE ]
The Poker Tournament Formula does not advise just going and playing any two cards any time you are in danger of going out of the Green Zone on the next hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said it did. But you said:

[ QUOTE ]
You play with the biggest advantage if you are a fully functional poker player--that is, in the green zone--and in order to stay in the green zone in fast tournaments, you have to choose a strategy that will keep you there.


[/ QUOTE ]

So I gave you an example where the best strategy to keep you in the Green Zone was clearly wrong.

MM