The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


Mason - why do you feel it is acceptable to address Radar O'Reilly by what you think his/her/their first name is?

This may seem acceptable to most here - since as poker players you experience no heat from blackjack pits. But for a professional gambler it is important to remain as anonymous as possible. In the blackjack world almost no one would publically give clues to someone else's identity, even if bitter rivals.

While you may consider it a courtesy or friendly - this seems quite irresponsible when anonymity is a requirement rather than a mere weakness.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The poster's identity was made public here by another poster, not by Mason.

2. The poster's identity is very relevant to this discussion. Failure to disclose it from the beginning may have damaged that poster's credibility.

3. Anonymity is of little concern here. Before you post here, or anywhere, you should be aware of local practices.

4. I find it extremely difficult to imagine how calling someone "XXX" on this forum could result in heat from the pit, unless she routinely wears a "Hello, My Name Is XXX" or "Hello, My Name Is Radar" name tag while playing BJ.

[WhiskeyR]

Addressing your points by the same numbers:


1.Then Mason takes it upon himself to address this person by their first name, rather than their pseuydonym (which they obviously prefer).


2. The only thing relevant to this discussion regarding their identity is merely what is already public knowledge about Radar. That is, that Radar is a professional gambler closely associated with Arnold. Not something that was at all hidden.

3. While anonymity may be of little concern here, it is absolutely important for real professional gamblers. For Mason to claim he considers Arnold a "friend" and then address someone who is supposedly his wife by her supposed real name is at best a lack of judgement.

4. It is not very difficult to connect the dots in most situations. Particularly when others are showing you more dots, for a clearer picture.

It is correct to be very careful about your real identity when you play blackjack for a profit - assuming you want to continue to do so for the long run.

Assuming the information in this thread means anything at all, it exposes two very key components to one person's identity. While this in and of itself might not be significant, when you consider the tidbits casinos may know about others they associate with... eventually the dots are put together.

One of these key components has been stated by Mason and only Mason - whether its true or not. I understand Mason may feel as though he is being attacked, but this is no reason to make any sensitive information public.

This may be okay to some of you, but for those of us who play blackjack professionally it is terribly irresponsible.

No real professional would ever - even if it was almost common knowledge - help to compromise someone else's advantage by helping to oust their identity.

Stronger language for this type of behavior could easily be used.

[Mason Malmuth]

I hope this is my last post in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
It is true that Arnold's basic strategy says that, with a competitive chip stack in late position and no one else in, "Raise with any two cards" (p. 157). However, he qualifies that on p. 84, in his chapter on position basic strategy, with the comment: "Although the basic position strategy is to raise, it is generally best to mix up your play on the button with raises and calls." He explains that the reason for mixing it up is for camo--to disguise your constant theft. I do not disagree that a small pair might be one of the better hands with which to call instead of raise to mix up your play.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this shows some confusion about no limit. You don't limp in in this spot to mix up your play. You limp with the small pair when the stacks are deep to maximize expectation. That's because in deep stack no limit (which would be the case when all the Ms are high) an important component of a hand's value is its ability to extract a lot of money from your opponent on the later streets if you get a very good flop. See No Limit Hold 'em: Theory and Practice by David Sklansky and Ed Miller for more discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
The reason the basic strategy is to raise in a fast tournament rather than call is because you are too unlikely to get a set with those small pairs frequently enough to get the return on investment you need to keep up with the rapidly declining M. You are unlikely to get a set because sets occur too infrequently, and in fast tournaments you simply do not have the same time luxury to wait for trapping hands. Because the blinds are going up so quickly, you have to have a better chance of making money now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite but this is getting better. The reason you raise with the small pair in this spot is that the Ms (both yours and your potential opponents) won't be high enough to make it worthwhile to try to trap your opponent. Put another way, that component of getting lots of money on the later streets when the flop comes right won't be there.

[ QUOTE ]
The point Arnold makes in The Poker Tournament Formula is that it is wrong in a fast tournament to sit there playing conservatively with the thought that you have time to trap that guy. The reason it is wrong is because you don't have time to trap anyone. What he says is (p. 234): "For you to sit there thinking, 'Wait until I have a really big hand--then I'll show them!' is just a fantasy. By the time you get that big hand--if you get that big hand--you won't have enough chips left to show anybody anything. You'll just be the short stack that got lucky in time to double up, so the sharks can start taking bites out of you again."

[/ QUOTE ]

It's frustrating debating with you because your arguments seem to completely ignore what I have written. So when you say
[ QUOTE ]
What he says is (p. 234): "For you to sit there thinking, 'Wait until I have a really big hand--then I'll show them!' is just a fantasy. By the time you get that big hand--if you get that big hand--you won't have enough chips left to show anybody anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

you ignore the fact that I have posted more than once a quote from Harrington II that says the exact same thing. The difference is that Harrington is not basing it on what you call tournament speed. He's basing it on M. And just to prove my point, here's the quote again from page 158:

[ QUOTE ]
At this point, you might well wonder how players of each style approach the problems of the endgame. The answer is surprising to many people: No matter which style you naturally play, your approach to endgame problems will be very similar. The rising blinds and your shrinking stack size will force you to play in a super-aggressive way. Players who naturally play in a super-aggressive style tend to adapt more naturally and quickly to endgame problems, which I think is the main reason their tournament results tend to be better than players whose natural style is tighter. But by and large, the problems of the endgame tend to be problems of technique, not style. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no conservative players at the tail end of tournaments. Someone who’s waiting for premium starting hands with a short stack isn’t playing conservatively, he’s just playing badly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have stated throughout this thread that Snyder and Harrington will agree on most situations, but not all, on the best strategy. That's because in your fast tournaments, the Ms will usually be low. I don't know how else to state this, yet you keep arguing that we are saying something else.

Harrington does not advise to play as you state over and over. I don't either. That's why I say that The Poker Tournament Formula will improve the expectation of most who read and study it.

[ QUOTE ]
The Poker Tournament Formula does not advise just going and playing any two cards any time you are in danger of going out of the Green Zone on the next hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said it did. But you said:

[ QUOTE ]
You play with the biggest advantage if you are a fully functional poker player--that is, in the green zone--and in order to stay in the green zone in fast tournaments, you have to choose a strategy that will keep you there.


[/ QUOTE ]

So I gave you an example where the best strategy to keep you in the Green Zone was clearly wrong.

MM

[Shandrax]

This thread has the potential to become quite entertaining.

Anyways, am I far off the mark when I say that Arnold's basic approach reminds me a lot of Negreanu's style, especially if you watch what he says in his video blogs* (when he is not talking about golf)?

*Just an observation - no advertisement for DN intended.

[Mickey Brausch]

If Malmuth called Radar O'Reilly by her real name, then you're right and that was extremely inappropriate.

But where did he do that? I missed it. Radar is not a real name, if this is what you mean. It's not Tammy either.

Neither is Arnold Snyder a real name. Neither is Mickey Brausch. I assume neither is WhiskeyR.

This has been a very educational thread so far and we are lucky to be able to witness two very knowledgeable experts debating a very interesting point of tournament play. Let's not spoil it now.

Mickey Brausch

[WhiskeyR]

Hi Mickey,

Mason did the right thing and edited the posts, so they no longer address Radar by name.

Cheers.

[Cactus Jack]

[ QUOTE ]

2. The poster's identity is very relevant to this discussion. Failure to disclose it from the beginning may have damaged that poster's credibility.


[/ QUOTE ]

This I totally disagree with. Radar's true identity would tend to undermine credibility. Instead of hearing what is said, there would be the suspicion of bias that may cause readers to ignore the content at best and dismiss at worst.

What does Radar's identity have to do with the value of the arguments?

Now...

Would someone please explain to this dummy how you two are in seeming total disagreement when you are all saying the same thing? (I'm including Harrington in the "all".) You have to make the same decisions on each hand. The difference is keeping in mind how few hands you'll have to make those decisions in fast tournaments versus slow tournaments. Mr. Snyder gives an excellent example of how his 30 BBs (M20) went to 12 in just a few hands. This was definitely based upon the speed of the tournament, rather than the quality of decisions.

Mason, please continue! Do not give up! We would greatly appreciate the two of you coming to an agreement.

Thanks.

CJ

[Leavenfish]

[quote Mr. Snyder gives an excellent example of how his 30 BBs (M20) went to 12 in just a few hands. This was definitely based upon the speed of the tournament, rather than the quality of decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeh, but if he got crap hands in that short of time, what's he supposed to do? Bad hands are bad hands and you can still play with an M of 12.

Now if you and Snyder are saying that you should have looked to not even get down to an M of 20...sometimes it just can't be helped. Besides, maybe the reason the M was 20 in the first place was because Snyder had tried to get more chips with a debatable hand when he was at an M of 25...or got beaten with a good hand - either could happen to Harrington or Snyder...perhaps slightly less so with Harrington since - while he impores you to try and stay there, might not be quite as desperate to stay well into the Green zone as Snyder.

I think Mason has explained everything, defended his position well and really has nothing much to add - particularly given that Radar has had a tendency to misrepresent some of his statements/twist them (perhaps) to keep the argument going and...hey, maybe generate buzz for the book.

---Leavenfish

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Mickey:

Upon request, I removed her first name from the thread. That's why you can't find it.

Best wishes,
mason

[jackaaron]

Mason,

Without actually giving a full review, what portions or concepts contained in this book do you feel are beneficial to a player (based on what you've read so far)?

Also, and probably more importantly, how does a player thinking in terms of tournament speed hurt his play? Might he, in your opinion, become TOO aggressive?