Re: I think Mason is relying on too narrow a definition of M
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you have an M of 30 and are dealt a small pair. Someone else who also has plenty of chips makes a small raise. You should play.

Now suppose it's a litle later in the tournament, perhaps after the levels have just increased and you have the exact same number of chips, have the same small pair, and are against the same opponent who still has plenty of chips, but now your M is 15. You should fold. Notice that this has nothing to do with tournament speed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what I was trying to say.

A lot of people are saying that "fast play" is the right strategy to take in fast tournaments, but also works great in slow tournaments. Doesn't that imply that it's not a tournament speed thing?!? You can't have something based on tournament speed that works good under both conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can have one strategy work well in both tournament types, and another strategy that works well in only one type of tournament.

Playing "fast" can work in both types of tournaments, as you point out. But that doesn't mean that speed does not matter, because playing "slow" does not work in fast tournaments.

By the way, my post above should have read an M of 20 in both the fast and the slow tournaments. Leavenfish's example is absurd (as he admits), but it illustrates the importance of considering the speed.

Re: I think Mason is relying on too narrow a definition of M
 

Hi Fish:

In your example suppose when your M is 22 you are dealt a seven-deuce and are first to act. You should fold. On the other hand, if your M was 3 and you are first to act with that seven-deuce you move all-in. Tournament speed has nothing to do with it.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: I think Mason is relying on too narrow a definition of M
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Fish:

In your example suppose when your M is 22 you are dealt a seven-deuce and are first to act. You should fold. On the other hand, if your M was 3 and you are first to act with that seven-deuce you move all-in. Tournament speed has nothing to do with it.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose we have the following blind structure:
Level 1: 5/10
Level 2: 5000/10000
Levels go up every 25 min
You are starting with 15000 Chips

Should you play the green zone strategy in Level 1 and stick to your regular pre-flop strategy?


Btw, the idea of playing 7-2o is not to do it for value. The idea is to play it, because all the other guys are likely to fold since they think that they are in the green zone and have to wait for A-Qs or better to act on your raise. The whole theme of this book is exploiting the mistakes of people who don't understand tournament strategy and it is also about exploiting people who think the gap is a fix value.

Re: I think Mason is relying on too narrow a definition of M
 

One should mention, that this strategy hardly works online, because any amount of pre-flop raise gets at least 3 callers.

Re: I think Mason is relying on too narrow a definition of M
 

You contest my example with an extreme hand example of your own? Was there something wrong in my example and the conclusion drawn from it?

Re: I think Mason is relying on too narrow a definition of M
 

I think that when we use extreme examples that don't really occur in tournaments like Mason and others have done, we really get away from the discussion.

Real world examples are much better. It's okay to say that speed does or does not matter in a live tournament where you start with 2000 chips, 25/50 starting blinds that double every level (50/100, 100/200, then antes, etc.), 15 minutes blinds (again, it's live), and 750 entrants. Debate over something that can generally happen, not a tournament where the blinds go from 25/50 to 5000/10000, or a tournament with 5 hands, or whatever Mason used as an example.

From Masons point of view, you play according to whatever M you happen to be at, at the time. So, if you play tight, and all the sudden you find yourself at an M of 6 without getting any cards or situations, then you play like a person would with an M of 6.

Snyder seems to just be saying that you need to have more of a sense of urgency sooner IF the tournament progresses at X rate with X number of entrants, and maybe a few other variables.

Re: I think Mason is relying on too narrow a definition of M
 

Even Harrington acknowledges in several places that you have to be aware of the rising blinds and the timing of when the next increase occurs, which influences how you play moreso than what your M is at that exact moment.

Mason, I don't get your isolating examples. It this not taking each hand as individual to an extreme? Perhaps in each instance you are correct for THAT hand, but in the overall strategy sense, it may be incorrect. While the cards have no memory, my opponents may, and I certainly do. Your examples do not take into account circumstances.

We'll always debate the new school all or nothing strategy vs. Caro's surive above all else strategy. I believe that Mr. Snyder is acknowledging the circumstances dictate which strategy is the more viable depending on the tournament.

CJ

Re: I think Mason is relying on too narrow a definition of M
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you have an M of 30 and are dealt a small pair. Someone else who also has plenty of chips makes a small raise. You should play.

Now suppose it's a litle later in the tournament, perhaps after the levels have just increased and you have the exact same number of chips, have the same small pair, and are against the same opponent who still has plenty of chips, but now your M is 15. You should fold. Notice that this has nothing to do with tournament speed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

That's an excellent example of M dictating your proper decison. With the higher M you'd be justified in playing for set value because the opponents stack relative to your cost of seeing the flop gives you the proper implied odds. But let's change the example a bit.

You're in MP with 55 and it is folded to you. Your M is 15 (down from 30 because the blinds doubled 2 or 3 hands ago when you were on the button). The players yet to act all have stacks comparable to yours. Based on your M the proper move is to fold since a small pocket pair is a speculative hand and the implied odds if you hit a set aren't there. However due to the short blind levels (we'll say 10 minutes) you know that the blinds will be going up just as you reach them the next time. That would decrease your M to 7.5 (assuming no antes). Odds of getting a starting hand as good as this one in the next several hands are low. I'd say that you could be justified in going all in with this hand which would be the proper move in the orange zone with hopes of either taking down the blinds or, even better, getting called by 2 overcards where you'll be the slight favorite. This move isn't justified by your M, but it is based on the fact that in just a few hands you'll be in the orange zone and odds are we won't be seeing a better hand before then. Note that in my example that in very few hands we've gone from green zone, to yellow, and that we're rapidly approaching the orange and red zones. We don't have time to wait because of the probability that we won't see a hand this good before hitting the orange zone and quite possibly not before hitting the red zone. We need to take a chance to accumulate chips now. This decision would largely be based on tournament speed.

We could both come up with an almost unlimited number of examples where a proper strategy is based on a factor other than tournament speed. (I say "a proper strategy" since in some situations there may be more than one approach that could be legitimate). As I see it Snyder's contention is that if you play in fast tournaments and want to maximize your ROI then playing a conservative strategy won't work. Although sometimes the move recommended at a particular point might also be what using another method such as Harrington's inflection points would also indicate this doesn't neccesarily mean that Snyder's logic for coming to the same decision is wrong. It could mean that there is more than one valid way to come to the same decision.

Poker decisions can often be driven by multiple factors that each need to be weighed. In the HOH series there are several problems where Harrington's solution looks at several factors. Some factors might point to one decision (maybe fold) where other factors might point towards another decison (move all in). As I see it Snyder's contention is that you need to consider another factor, tournament speed, in making the proper decision. Some of his suggestions will work in slower tournaments. I don't see that as meaning that tournament speed doesn't matter. Instead it means that the aggressive style he outlines is a style that could potentially work in a slower tournament. However the book cautions against this, not because some of these techniques couldn't be useful or this style legitimate to use in these tournaments, but because additional skills are required for success in these tournaments (a higher skill factor to use his terminology). Some of the techniques involve taking risks to accumulate chips (raising to steal the blinds from late position). This is a legitimate technique in slow tournaments, however it is one that you'd want to use much more sparingly in slower tournaments because the more you do so the more likely that you'll start getting played back at (resteals, stop and goes, etc) and the urgency to accumulate chips isn't as high. The percentage of times you raise from late position with junk or marginal starting hands to steal the blinds seems to be one that can legitimately be determined by tournament speed.

I agree with your contention that tournament speed doesn't factor into all of your decisions (whether to play a small pocket pair for set value for instance). But if any decisions can legitimately be made using tournament speed as a factor then I think Snyder's book is worthwhile. I don't see how you can say that speed is NEVER a factor which is how I'm interpreting your posts.

Al

Re: The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...
 

[ QUOTE ]
While I am 100 percent sure that it was written independently to the material that appears in Harrington on Hold 'em: Volume II many of the recommended plays are quite similar, and many of the hand examples in Harrington II are from the type of topurnaments that Arnold is addressing.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this statement, Mason is misrepresenting the material in the The Poker Tournament Formula. The basic strategy for green zone play in Snyder's book is radically different from what Harrington recommends, and that has been recognized by every player who has read the book. The basic strategy for short stack play is all that is similar. The reason short stack strategy will be similar in all good poker tournament books is because short stacks leave you so few options. Let me state this clearly: Optimal green zone play is radically different in Snyder's book from what is presented in Harrington's book because Harrington's green zone strategy is a loser for fast tournament structures.

Again, Mason is still simply reiterating an assertion rather than refuting the math in Snyder's book. As I posted earlier, in order to refute Arnold's proof that optimal tournament strategy is based on structure, Mason has to refute one of the following (which so far he has failed to do):

1. He has to show mathematically that fast play will not more frequently keep you in the green zone in fast tournaments than conservative play.

OR

2. He has to show that Arnold's math is wrong in Chapter 10 of The Poker Tournament Formula, where he shows the mathematical basis of the edge a big chip stack has over a small chip stack in a tournament. (He has made an incorrect assertion about a small point involving a rebuy, which I will deal with separately, but he has not refuted the math regarding the edge a big stack has over a small stack.)

OR

3. He has to show that you are not limited in your skill options when you sink below the green zone.

Mason can say a thousand times that all you have to do is play Harrington's M formula in any tournament, and he can get a thousand fish to march down the Strip, all carrying placards that say the same thing, and that still doesn't refute the math in The Poker Tournament Formula, because it doesn't refute any of these three points.

But, in a way, none of this matters. People playing Harrington's M formula in fast tournaments are some of the most exploitable fish in the fast tournaments right now. Obviously, it will not be a problem for smart players if many players want to go on being fish.

Re: I think Mason is relying on too narrow a definition of M
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're in MP with 55 and it is folded to you. Your M is 15 (down from 30 because the blinds doubled 2 or 3 hands ago when you were on the button). The players yet to act all have stacks comparable to yours. Based on your M the proper move is to fold since a small pocket pair is a speculative hand and the implied odds if you hit a set aren't there. However due to the short blind levels (we'll say 10 minutes) you know that the blinds will be going up just as you reach them the next time. That would decrease your M to 7.5 (assuming no antes). Odds of getting a starting hand as good as this one in the next several hands are low. I'd say that you could be justified in going all in with this hand which would be the proper move in the orange zone with hopes of either taking down the blinds or, even better, getting called by 2 overcards where you'll be the slight favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

So blinds are 100/200 and you go all-in from MP with 55 and 4500 chips?