The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say that proper play as a fully functional player in the green zone as outlined by Harrington is considered the correct way to play. Add to that, the blinds are going to increase rapidly and take us out of the green zone soon, why would we play incorrectly in order to avoid this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read what Harrington wrote. It's important enough to stay in the Green Zone that it's worth taking some risk to stay there. What exactly did you think he meant when he said "taking some risk"?

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, blinds are low, but they ARE worth stealing, because you have such a low M to begin with.

Second, even with low blinds, the pot will be worth competing for.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's debateable how much it's worth fighting for low blinds (I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you here.) But keep in mind that one important thing that results from some of Snyder's tactics is that you will be winning not just blinds, but *pots*, preferrably heads up where you win the chips that your opponent raised with or called a raise with. Obviously this is more substantial than just blind money. And of course he gives advice on which types of players to try this against (no, not passive players that will not fold AQ postflop, and not players that would not have raised without a big pair preflop to begin with.)

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
It's more like lack of chips beat position. This is easy to see. When you're all-in and get called, position doesn't matter anymore.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you actually believe some of the nonsense you write, or is it just too important to act like you know more than some other author?

It's not "lack of chips", it's being all in, regardless of how many chips you started with. And it doesn't "beat" position, it renders it moot. Do you see why?

[Mason Malmuth]

There's a proverb in the bible: "The love of money is the root of all evil." Mark Twain said that he thought it was "The lack of money."

MM

[IQ89]

[ QUOTE ]
Mark Twain said that he thought the root of all evil was due to "The lack of money."


[/ QUOTE ]

The old "poverty causes crime" belief. Yes, and as we all know, the abundance of money causes altruistic behavior.

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lets say that proper play as a fully functional player in the green zone as outlined by Harrington is considered the correct way to play. Add to that, the blinds are going to increase rapidly and take us out of the green zone soon, why would we play incorrectly in order to avoid this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read what Harrington wrote. It's important enough to stay in the Green Zone that it's worth taking some risk to stay there. What exactly did you think he meant when he said "taking some risk"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your "answer" seems almost to another question. It's as if I asked, "Is the sky blue?" and you said, "Grass is ALWAYS on the ground. What do you think the green stuff is?"

No worries though.

[Trebor the Mad Overlord]

[ QUOTE ]
This is exactly the point that I think Mason seems to be punting on over and over. If your M is 20 and Q is 1 in the WSOP, that is very different from playing at the starting bell of the Riviera tourney ($1500 stack; 25-50 blinds; 15 minute rounds) where your M starts at 20, but is scheduled to drop to 9 in 15 minutes and drop to 4 in 30 minutes (without a playable hand).

[/ QUOTE ]

After reading Snyder's book and trying out his suggestions, I found that it improved my play considerably (not that that would be hard... grin)

IMHO, what Snyder adds to "M" is the concept of "M-decay". It's sort of like radioactive half-life. Since doing nothing in a fast tournament will result in your M dropping faster than in a slow tournament, you have to make an adjustment for this. If you have an M of 10 in a slow tournament, your "decayed" M value might be 9.5 -- but in a super-fast tournament, it might be 3!

Snyder's point about taking some risks to stay in the green is also well taken. If you are a better than average player, it's worth taking risks to preserve your ability to deploy your full toolbox, and the faster the tournament, the more risk you should be willing to take. If your M is 30 and the rest of the table is around 10 (and diving fast), you've got a huge edge.

After reading the book, I had a lot better understanding of why the successful "maniac" LAG players do what they do, and why it can be so powerful.

[adios]

Your M is calculated from the blinds you will likely be paying not what other players are paying no??? In the example you give, when it's my turn to post a big blind if I know I will have an M of 2 then the fact that someone else has an M of 13 when they post blinds is basically irrelevent.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lets say that proper play as a fully functional player in the green zone as outlined by Harrington is considered the correct way to play. Add to that, the blinds are going to increase rapidly and take us out of the green zone soon, why would we play incorrectly in order to avoid this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read what Harrington wrote. It's important enough to stay in the Green Zone that it's worth taking some risk to stay there. What exactly did you think he meant when he said "taking some risk"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your "answer" seems almost to another question.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would play "incorrectly", i.e. you would "take some risk", because you can only make "proper plays" if you're in the green zone. In other words, Harrington did not fully flesh out his "M strategy". Comments such as "take some risk to remain there" show that he's aware of "impending doom". In other words, having an M of 20 is not the same thing as having an M of 40 (with regard to your strategy), even though they are both in the "Green Zone", especially if the blinds are coming up quickly or there are large antes.

His strategy is incomplete.

So again I ask you - what do you think "taking some risk" means in context? Does it actually mean "playing incorrectly", or does it mean something else? Does it mean that what is actually "playing correctly" not really what you think it means when your M is, say, exactly 20? Obviously you should always "play correctly". It should be obvious by now that "playing correctly" results in different decisions when your M is 20 and when your M is 50.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Your M is calculated from the blinds you will likely be paying not what other players are paying no??? In the example you give, when it's my turn to post a big blind if I know I will have an M of 2 then the fact that someone else has an M of 13 when they post blinds is basically irrelevent.

[/ QUOTE ]

First it's not irrelevant because your stack size compared to your opponents' stack size is always relevant. Second, the point is how many hands you get to see before your M value drops. The faster M goes down, the less you can wait for good hands.