Dene Tribe's Poker Tournament Evaluation System is a Rip-Off - Page 3

smbruin22 · #1 06-04-2007, 02:48 PM

i do think arnold's book deserves a citation.... i doubt it was exactly a unique idea (although i'd never seen it specifically before, and i think arnold said someone else showed him the formula) but i do think arnold basically popularized it and has a great resource where he rates tournaments from all over USA and the internet.

dthf90210 · #2 06-04-2007, 04:03 PM

I guess the question is whether 2+2 is planning on publishing a book based on Arnold's book. ER, I mean based on the article. I predict they are planning this.

Elrazor · #3 06-04-2007, 04:01 PM

cool all you need to do now is get to a couple of WSOP main even final tables and people might actually care

those who can do, those who cant teach

BigAlK · #4 06-04-2007, 04:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
cool all you need to do now is get to a couple of WSOP main even final tables and people might actually care

those who can do, those who cant teach

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is stupid. Do you know why?

zuluking · #5 06-04-2007, 04:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
cool all you need to do now is get to a couple of WSOP main even final tables and people might actually care

those who can do, those who cant teach

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are referring to Arnold in this statement, then you are an idiot who hasn't even bothered to grasp this concept...and you don't even know why.

smbruin22 · #6 06-04-2007, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
cool all you need to do now is get to a couple of WSOP main even final tables and people might actually care

those who can do, those who cant teach

[/ QUOTE ]

you're a tool!!

jeffnc · #7 06-05-2007, 12:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I've also published numerous articles on the importance of tournament structure on optimal strategy and skill requirements. The latest of these was "True M" versus Harrington's M: Critical Flaws in Harrington's M Theory, And Why Tournament Structure Matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arnold, the article states "Thus, we are forced to believe that what Mason Malmuth claims is true: that Harrington considers his strategies correct for tournaments of all speeds. So it is doubtful that he made any True M adjustments, even for slower tournament structures. Simply put, Harrington is oblivious to the true mathematics of M."

My opinion is that this is not correct. I believe Dan does, in fact, know intuitively that his M is not quite correct. Or at least, that there is more to it.

Consider his comment on page 156. "Before you start a hand with a short chip stack, you want to review your M... With the blinds totalling $75, your M is about 15... In a few hands, however, the blinds will double and your M will shrink to between 7 and 8... so on all counts you're looking to make some sort of move."

So Dan understands how speed affects things, at least on some level. He just didn't flesh it all out.

In other words, I believe Dan basically agrees with you about "True M", if you pressed him, but his book was what it was at the time. Now his strategy may well be conservative, possibly too conservative to be optimal. But that is another matter.

Sherman · #8 06-05-2007, 12:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've also published numerous articles on the importance of tournament structure on optimal strategy and skill requirements. The latest of these was "True M" versus Harrington's M: Critical Flaws in Harrington's M Theory, And Why Tournament Structure Matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arnold, the article states "Thus, we are forced to believe that what Mason Malmuth claims is true: that Harrington considers his strategies correct for tournaments of all speeds. So it is doubtful that he made any True M adjustments, even for slower tournament structures. Simply put, Harrington is oblivious to the true mathematics of M."

My opinion is that this is not correct. I believe Dan does, in fact, know intuitively that his M is not quite correct. Or at least, that there is more to it.

Consider his comment on page 156. "Before you start a hand with a short chip stack, you want to review your M... With the blinds totalling $75, your M is about 15... In a few hands, however, the blinds will double and your M will shrink to between 7 and 8... so on all counts you're looking to make some sort of move."

So Dan understands how speed affects things, at least on some level. He just didn't flesh it all out.

In other words, I believe Dan basically agrees with you about "True M", if you pressed him, but his book was what it was at the time. Now his strategy may well be conservative, possibly too conservative to be optimal. But that is another matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has already been extensively discussed: Link Just in case you wanted to know. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

BigAlK · #9 06-05-2007, 01:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, I believe Dan basically agrees with you about "True M", if you pressed him, but his book was what it was at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeff,

This is also what I've always believed. The discussion of effective M as well as several asides in other sections have led me to this conclusion. However Mason says he talked to Harrington and he said no. Not sure if it is the same thread Shermn linked, but a current thread in the Books and Pubs forum has the link to what Mason said on this. If he truly feels this way I'd be interested in his explanation of the parts of the book that seem to contradict this and what he really meant.

Your example is just one of many examples. Taking that comment to the logical conclusion (what if blinds go up and your M goes down every 8-10 hands) then he and Arnold don't seem to be that far apart on this issue whether Harrington spelled it out or not.

Al

Sherman · #10 06-05-2007, 01:16 AM

Holy Crap. That discussion in Books and Pubs (linked here) is too long for anyone to read IMO. In the post above, I linked a much shorter discussion of Snyder's most recent article in the MTT strategy forum. Good luck to anyone who wants to start reading the books and pubs thread now. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]