[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
What's sad is that the debate became so venomous that it was impossible to have a courteous discourse, and until the past few days, there were hardly any intelligent comments to be found in these forums on the subject for several weeks. It's plain to me that Mason should have simply acknowledged that he made a mistake on this one point, and that Arnold should have likewise conceded error on one or two points

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's okay for Snyder to write articles where he claims that I said things which I never said, and that I gave specific advice that I never did, and quote some of my work totally out of context to prove his points. You need to answer that question before you come on here and make this sort of statement.

As for your other point:

[ QUOTE ]
Mason rejected this argument, and held to the position that tournament speed should not affect one's tournament strategy--that strategy should be dictated by current M, not by what M would become within a relatively short time.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're misrepresenting what I said here as well. I do agree that if your M will change within a few hands it can and should affect your strategy. (This is in Harrington II which I am the publisher.) This was stated many times. But I don't agree that if you have a starting M of say 50 and the stakes are going to be raised every 15 minutes you should be playing your hands differently from if you had a starting M of 50 and the stakes are going to be raised every hour.

Also, something that both you and Snyder refused to address is the fact that his book (and thus Snyder himself) never realized that the tournaments he addressed are percentage payback instead of winner take all. This affects your strategy.

As pointed out in my Gambling Theory book the affect is small early in a tournament but can become significant very late in a tournament. This is something that Snyder deliberately misquoted from me and that you have refused to recognize in your posts.

Shame on you.

MM