|
|
#202
08-11-2006, 12:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...
[ QUOTE ]
And, on p. 57 of Harrington I, he writes specifically about bluffing in fast tournaments online: "Don't plan on running any bluffs." He says that players are too aggressive in these fast online tournaments to bluff at. I consider this bad advice for fast tournaments because it is impossible to stay in the Green without stealing much more than this. And you just cannot make a statement that bluffing is impossible in fast tournaments without qualifying it with a lot of other information. [/ QUOTE ] Actually, this is exactly what Harrington says on page 57 of Harrington: Volume I. [ QUOTE ] Don’t plan on running any bluffs. Players are extremely aggressive; they’re looking to double up quickly, and they don’t need much to call. You’ll see plenty of all-in showdowns where a pair of fours butts up against an ace-six offsuit. The bottom line: Your shrewd, well-considered bluff to steal the pot will probably be answered by a big reraise followed by an all-in! Don’t bother. Just make sure you have a hand when you get a lot of chips in the pot. (Interestingly, although bluffs don’t work in these games, you’ll still see plenty of bluffs tried. [/ QUOTE ] Notice that the Harrington comments have absolutely nothing nothing to do with how quickly the blinds are raised. His observation, whether you agree with it or not, is that most of the players in these tournaments have certain characteristics that makes it difficult to successfully bluff them. [ QUOTE ] On p. 156 of Harrington II, at the beginning of his examples of inflection point play, he does acknowledge the need to look ahead in a circumstance where you are currently in the Yellow zone, but will be in the Orange zone within the next few hands. He acknowledges that because of this, you are looking to make some kind of move now, rather than later. But he doesn't carry this insight far enough to be satisfactory for fast tournaments. He has you waiting until you are on the verge of the lower zone to speed up your play. It's understandable that he feels comfortable waiting that long, because he is playing in tournaments with blind levels that last so long that you really do have time to wait, if you choose. [/ QUOTE ] Notice that if the levels change in three hands they change in three hands regardless of how long the level will be. The reason to wait until you are on the verge of the zone changing is that your "M," assuming you choose to adjust it is not a linear curve. It should look more like an S curve. That's because you don't lose any of your playing abilities for that particular zone as long as you are in that particular zone. MM 
|
|
#203
08-11-2006, 12:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Little More on Radar
[ QUOTE ]
I said in my post at BJF: It is the first and only book in the poker tournament literature to discuss the mathematical basis for bankroll requirements for tournaments, and show how these requirements are altered by field size. Mason says: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's not true either. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My response: This is another of Mason's assertions with no proof. Are you saying that others have provided a mathematical basis for tournament bankroll requirements, with adjustments for field size? If so, please cite your source. [/ QUOTE ] I'll now cite the source. It is from Poker Gaming & Life by David Sklansky. The essay is titled: "Is Your Wallet Fat Enough for Tournaments" and it begins on page 139. David's approach is a little different since it was based on computer simulations and not a direct calculation of the standard deviation. And this brings up another interesting point. Snyder's method of computing how much you could be losing (or how little you could be winning) is based on a method that is essentially identical to the one I used in Gambling Theory and Other Topics even though I was computing bankroll requirements for cash games and not tournaments. He then goes on give what he calls a "Fudge Formula" for estimating the required bankroll. However, if he would have been more familiar with the Gambling Theory book he could have calculated the required bankroll more directly. By the way, if you look at page 59 of my book Poker Essays you will see the bankroll equation. (It doesn't appear in this form in Gambling Theory and Other Topics.) MM
|
|
#204
08-11-2006, 06:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Little More on Radar
Sweeeet Dancin' Moses, this has become one big, geek slapathon. Didn't know you digitheads could get so passionate about such superfluouty.
See, I checked this topic out to see what the consensus opinion of said tome was being claimed by the good 2+2 folk, and I stumble onto a huffy, ego-driven semantic argument, partly egged on by a man I thought above such silliness, a man in search of the truth above all, nay, a man I worshiped as a god? Well, a minor deity, anyway... Near as I can tell, said tome is recommended by most, even as semantic hooey is being debated. Is the "speed" of the tournament more important than the hallowed "M"? No. Does the "speed" have some effect on the hallowed "M"? Yes. The actions said tome suggests are not, indeed, driven by the speed of the tournament, but by the "M" factor, which can, in fact, be affected by the speed of the tournament, although with minimal effect (if any) on how any given hand should be played. Yeah...my head is spinning, too... Anyway, the argument over ultimate causation doesn't matter. The book's advice is sound, as St. Malmuth has relentlessly said, and now there has been much energy expended on how many angels can rollerskate on the head of this particular pin. Have you forgotten Thoreau's Dictum, my friends? "Simplify, simplify, simplify". There is a teutonic heavy metal guitarist named Yngwie Malmsteen, known for playing hyper-fast runs and quick single note lines. He is technically awesome, artistically vapid, and culturally insignificant, but that's beside the point. A few years ago, a journalist took him to task for playing too fast. He responded that he didn't play too fast, but that he may be guilty of playing too many notes in too short of a passage. Technically, he was right, but the two concepts were so intertwined as to be indistinguishable. It was just more semantically efficient to say he played "too fast". Same concept applies here...St. Malmuth is (as usual) dead on the money, but it's a semantic conceit, and arguments to the contrary should probably have been ignored. There is no upside to this debate... And, no, superfluouty is not a word...call it poetic license, Bubba, and let it go...
|
|
#205
08-11-2006, 01:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
5 books you must read?
just ordered my copy thru chapters.ca (amazon had long wait here in canada).
anyhow, the table of contents looks interesting... http://www.pokertournamentformula.co...rmula_book.htm amongst many things, something that caught my eye was "5 books you must read".... anyone know what they are. looks like this may be SNG book the market has been clamouring for.... and standard proviso, never heard of book or anyone associated with it until a week and a half ago. i think i actually saw it first time same day as this thread began.
|
|
#206
08-11-2006, 01:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 5 books you must read?
[ QUOTE ]
amongst many things, something that caught my eye was "5 books you must read".... anyone know what they are. [/ QUOTE ] In his recommended books section he has the following "5 books you must read." Super System 2 Caro's Book of Tells Championship No-limit and Pot-limit Hold'Em (Cloutier and McEvoy) HOH2 TOP
|
|
#207
08-11-2006, 02:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 5 books you must read?
[quoteIn his recommended books section he has the following "5 books you must read."
Super System 2 Caro's Book of Tells Championship No-limit and Pot-limit Hold'Em (Cloutier and McEvoy) HOH2 TOP [/ QUOTE ] thanks... and obviously book written before NLTP and HOH3
|
|
#209
08-11-2006, 04:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Little More on Radar
[ QUOTE ]
There is a teutonic heavy metal guitarist named Yngwie Malmsteen, known for playing hyper-fast runs and quick single note lines. He is technically awesome, artistically vapid, and culturally insignificant, but that's beside the point. A few years ago, a journalist took him to task for playing too fast. He responded that he didn't play too fast, but that he may be guilty of playing too many notes in too short of a passage. Technically, he was right, but the two concepts were so intertwined as to be indistinguishable. It was just more semantically efficient to say he played "too fast". [/ QUOTE ] In your lengthy attempt to educate others on the value of simplicity, you could have used some of your own advice. But who cares? Yngwie rocks! YEAH!
|
|
#210
08-11-2006, 05:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Little More on Radar
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] There is a teutonic heavy metal guitarist named Yngwie Malmsteen, known for playing hyper-fast runs and quick single note lines. He is technically awesome, artistically vapid, and culturally insignificant, but that's beside the point. A few years ago, a journalist took him to task for playing too fast. He responded that he didn't play too fast, but that he may be guilty of playing too many notes in too short of a passage. Technically, he was right, but the two concepts were so intertwined as to be indistinguishable. It was just more semantically efficient to say he played "too fast". [/ QUOTE ] In your lengthy attempt to educate others on the value of simplicity, you could have used some of your own advice. But who cares? Yngwie rocks! YEAH! [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, you're probably right, but it was late and I was all hyped on frosted cheerios and Shasta. Didn't seem that lengthy at the time, but when one looks back at the underlying text and tries to conc....ah, hell, you're right... Yngwie does, indeed, rock... So does Arnold Snyder... Simple enough?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
