[MrX5000]

[ QUOTE ]
The revelation of my book is that fast poker tournaments are not crap shoots, but highly valuable for players who adjust their tournament strategy according to the structure of the tournament. The reason fast tournaments were considered crap shoots is because the published strategies were incorrect--losing strategies--for these events. My book provides a fast tournament strategy in which I have compiled a win rate of over 230% past 5 standard deviations.

In addition, my book is the first to provide a systematic method of assessing the skill value of fast tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I think you AND Harrington's M have good points. I use your criteria as a way of choosing the tournament but as far as adjusting your play based on where you're at in the tournament, it's nearly identical because harrington does make these adjustments as far as loosening up starting hand requirements and short stack play just like your book. Your book claims that he doesn't take certain things like position into account which is nonsense. I've read them both and I agree that you make some inaccurate statements about harrington's formula. It's almost as if you really didn't read his entire 3 books set like the most of us.

Anyway, I do believe along with yourself that you deserve some type of credit about you're blinding off theory (I'll just call it that because simply put it's how long it takes to blind out). The other formula seems like an abbreviation of this formula. But to be honest, your formula seems almost identical to Harringtons. Did you realize that Harrington adjusts his M according to the number of players at the table and a correction factor can be added based on how many hands per hour? Now take into account the zone theory he comes up with and you pretty much have the same theory as yourself except it 2 times 2 instead of 2 plus 2. The answer is still 4.