Snyder, Malmuth, and Sklansky all partly right?

[Grumbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I realize that none of you are actual tournament players, or that, if you do play, you are playing at a very very low level.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you are...????

I didn't think that buy-in was the issue here, but tournament speed.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, the mistake you guys are making in this thread is in assigning chip value as an overly simplified function of prize. You are completely failing to deal with the real-life complexity of chip value, and there is no reason for this, because it is addressed in Arnold Snyder's article. To be blunt, the math in this thread is pretty, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with real-life tournament strategy and success.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, actually (and speaking for myself), I was just making the point that the original poster misunderstood S&M advice and was coming up with numbers to their supposed position that they wouldn't come up with themselves.

And the main influence that effects chip value other than stack size is the skill of the players. And this was known before Snyder's articles. Many here believe Snyder's reasons are misguided, even if much of his advice is correct.

As for nothing to do with real-life tournament situations (referring to the decreasing value of chips), you are wrong. I have stated that it will effect whether or not you play a hand. David just gave a more comprehensive explanation in another thread:

[ QUOTE ]
The big application occurs in the early rounds of major tournaments where you are lucky enough to start with an easy table. And the strategy change isn't just avoiding calling an all in bet. Its playing the whole hand (when the alternatives are close) in a way that reduces the likelihood that you will find yourself in that spot. In other words you don't reraise a late position opener in the samll blind with AK suited. Stuff like that.

As far as quantifying how much positive EV you should give up to avoid a confrontation that will bust you, there are many parameters with the most important two being the skill of your opponents and whether you will have lots of chips to work with if you pass the gamble up.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was talking about early in tournaments. The effect becomes more pronounced later on.

Not only will not recognizing the decreasing value of chips cause you to play hands you shouldn't, but also believing that the chips increase in value will move you even further in that direction.

As for this point:

[ QUOTE ]
However, gambling advice is properly seen as investment advice, and you are responsible for giving players very bad advice on what to do with their money. In addition, you are failing to identify yourselves as non-practitioners, as well as failing to alert players that you have not performed statistically significant tests of your theories, . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, speaking for myself, I haven't given any gambling advice based on these discussions. Nor have most of the posters. Discussing an issue and giving opinions is not the same as giving advice. That's the reason most of us are here--to have these debates to improve our understanding.

[ QUOTE ]
while Arnold Snyder has gathered statistically significant win results on his theories.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the second time you have made this claim on these forums. Where are the results? Do you really expect everyone to take your word on this? If you are claiming statistically significant results then I think you should make the results known. How many people? How many tournaments? Compared with what? Etc.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
I realize that none of you are actual tournament players, or that, if you do play, you are playing at a very very low level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this statement certainly caught my attention, especially after reading this.

Anyway, I thought it might be interesting to see what some of our posters on our Multi-Table Tournament Forum thought about it. So I started another thread here.

MM

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I realize that none of you are actual tournament players, or that, if you do play, you are playing at a very very low level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this statement certainly caught my attention, especially after reading this.

Anyway, I thought it might be interesting to see what some of our posters on our Multi-Table Tournament Forum thought about it. So I started another thread here.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, pros are always calling all-in bets on the flop with top pair weak kicker early in a tournament.

And pros are always over-calling all-in bets with top pair medium kicker.

This conversation has officially become funny again.

[George Rice]

Later in that thread she posted in part:

[ QUOTE ]
My post about the players at Bellagio was provided to make a point. In the Bellagio example, the three professional players were correct to take a "coin flip" (it wasn't really a coin flip in this case, because over time they could each expect to triple up only 1/3 of the time, and bounce out of the tournament 2/3 of the time) because of the specific situation of having four aggressive professional players, who all understood chip utility value, at the same table at the same time, and all with stacks that left them too short to use their skills in a way that could give them a significant edge in the tournament without a bigger stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the bettor is called twice with his top-pair-weak-kicker, he's not trippling up 1/3 the time. Not no way. Not no how.

If the caller is over-called, he's not trippling up 1/3 the time. Not on this planet. He isn't doubling up with that hand 1/2 the time either, if he isn't overcalled.

If the over-caller is over-calling with top-pair-medium-kicker, he is not trippling up 1/3 the time either, execpt maybe in his dreams.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
If the over-caller is over-calling with top-pair-medium-kicker, he is not trippling up 1/3 the time either, execpt maybe in his dreams.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi George:

My estimate is that the overcaller wouldn't win in this situation more than 2 percent of the time.

In fact, it's my opinion that this hand never happened. It was probably made up to illustrate a point, and as you said, this stuff is getting funny again.

Best wishes,
Mason