Re: \"True M\" vs. Harrington\'s M: Critical Flaws in Harrington\'s M Theo
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But in HOH II, he clearly states that M tells you how many rounds of the table you will survive—period . . . His book tells us that he assumes an M of 20 simply means 20 rounds remaining—which we know is wrong for all real-world tournaments
[/ QUOTE ]These statements demonstrate that either you have reading comprehension issues or you feel it necessary to distort the teachings of others to make yours look better. Neither option gives me much reason to take you seriously.
[/ QUOTE ]
I read this guy's articles on why Sklansky was wrong to say you shouldn't take even gambles for your whole stack in tournaments. Some of what Sklansky said isn't always true, but Snyder acted like he had refuted Sklansky.
As far as M is concerned, the issue of how many rounds till you blind out is not the most important thing.
It seems like he is making really trivial points and acting like he has discovered something earthshaking.
|