[WRX]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I accept your correction, and thank you for setting forth your views in greater detail. This is fully consistent with what you were writing in these forums late last year. What I was trying to do was to summarize your views in a few lines. I have to say that for purposes of the point being debated, I don't think that any difference or inaccuracy in how I stated them was significant. As you say again today, "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." I think that this is wrong for reasons that a number of people have ably discussed in this and related threads, and that Arnold discussed in his book and in further writings.

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think that that sort of thing is okay. It's true that Arnold did some of that, although I'm not prepared to conclude that it was deliberate. I see no reason that I should be obligated to publicly castigate Arnold before suggesting that you are in error, on a point of theory, and that you are letting pride get in the way of reexamining your position. Please note that whatever mild criticism I've levied has been evenhanded, directed equally to you both. In the post to which you have just responded, I noted that I thought Arnold, too, was failing to admit error on one or two points. I went into a whole lot more detail about this in various messages last year, and it would serve no good purpose to repeat it all now.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do acknowledge the effects you mention here. These points came up prominently in some of the posts from last year that I just mentioned.

The thing is, whatever you may think, I'm not some Snyder clone, and I'm really not interested in taking sides in an argument as to which of you has the most winning personality, or is the better dancer. I was responding to an insightful comment by another contributor, noting how there had been such a lack of constructive exchange on this subject for so long, and pointing out what I thought was needed to move things forward.

[ QUOTE ]
Shame on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I reject that.