The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember when he predicted Hold'em would die out because the edge pros had vs the newbs was too great?

[/ QUOTE ]

Amazing. I said "no limit...," not "hold 'em ...," and no limit hold 'em as a cash game did die out and wasn't played for many years.

MM

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
If your M is 20 in a tournament with 90 min levels, and then you have an M of 20 in a tournament with 15 min levels, your stratagy will have to change completly. You can not say well i have an m of 20 so i do this, your m will drop at a greater rate and you need to take greater risks in the faster tournament even if you have a high m.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
That is all the man is trying to get across, I can not belive it has caused so much commotion.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has caused commotion because the statement is flawed, and because Snyder’s understanding of the situation appears to be so far off the mark. He has also been deliberately antagonistic towards 2+2, which seems to have pissed Mason off [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
You can not say well i have an m of 20 so i do this, your m will drop at a greater rate and you need to take greater risks in the faster tournament even if you have a high m.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you can argue that you are being blinded off more quickly in a turbo tournament, and that could cause you to play more quickly. But how big is this effect? Have you put a numerical estimate on it? How does it compare with the other effects causing you to play more slowly?

My guess: UTG with an M of 3, I would treat the situation as if I had an M of around 2.5 in determining my actions. With an M of 20 I would consider the blinding off effect too small to have any noticeable effect, and the difference between the blinding off effect in the two tournament structures an order of magnitude smaller even than that.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Piers:

[ QUOTE ]
It has caused commotion because the statement is flawed, and because Snyder’s understanding of the situation appears to be so far off the mark. He has also been deliberately antagonistic towards 2+2, which seems to have pissed Mason off

[/ QUOTE ]

It's worse than that. Snyder has written stuff claiming that David and I have specific advice which is far different from the advice we give.

A few people here seem to believe that you should be playing hands, or at least some hands, very differently depending on the length of the rounds. If this is the case, it should be fairly easy to give some examples and explain why the change in strategy is correct. I have yet to see an example that I agreed with.

One example that does come up and is mentioned in Snyder's book is to call a raise on the button with any two cards if no one else is in. The basis for this idea was originally discussed in my Gambling Theory book and again it has nothing to do with speed. It is a function of how your opponent is playing, and Snyder doesn't seem to realize that in these small buy-in tournaments many of the players are at the bottom of the barrel skill wise and will tend to play way too tight. So again, while this advice based on his observations might be reasonably good for these small buy-in tourneys, it is not a speed issue.

best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Al:

First thanks for your support.

If you are correct about tournament speed affecting strategy, it should be fairly easy to give some examples of hands where good strategy would be different depending on the length of the rounds. In fact, a few examples would put this issue to rest very quickly. I have yet to see any examples that I agree with.

Best wishes,
Mason

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll trust my own reading skills over Mason's desperate attempts to protect 2+2 turf.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the insult. I guess you somehow missed the fact that I did give Snyder's book an 8 on my 1 to 10 review scale and anythig that gets an 8 or higher is something I recommend.

However, there are some flaws in Snyder's book, the most notable being that he didn't realize the tourneys are percentage payback as opposed to being winner take all, and in these threads I have given a number of very specific examples as to exactly where I think his advice is wrong. Yet none of you have ever addressed these spots. In addition, no one has ever given any specific examples of hands that should be played differently because of the time factor. That needs to be done before you can say that Snyder has it right on this point.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't understand modus operandi by many posters. When you can't refute someone's point and your (poster responding to you) reasoning is bogus, resort to insults. That's exactly what this poster is doing to you. He can't refute your points, his reasoning is bogus so now he resorts to insulting you. I tuned him out long ago when I realized he wasn't interested in any kind of intellectually honest dialogue.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll trust my own reading skills over Mason's desperate attempts to protect 2+2 turf.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the insult.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the sarcasm. And thanks for some of your subjective comments over the course of your book reviews. Hey, you want to be a professional book reviewer, then take the criticism. This isn't the first time you've done this.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess you somehow missed the fact that I did give Snyder's book an 8 on my 1 to 10 review scale and anythig that gets an 8 or higher is something I recommend.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I didn't forget that. That's one of the things you like to do - give a book a decent rating, but then when make comments that hold the real thrust of the opinion. For example the time you claimed Matthew Hilger didn't know what a semi-bluff was, yet still gave his book 7/10.

[ QUOTE ]
However, there are some flaws in Snyder's book, the most notable being that he didn't realize the tourneys are percentage payback as opposed to being winner take all, and in these threads I have given a number of very specific examples as to exactly where I think his advice is wrong. Yet none of you have ever addressed these spots.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because I have no issue with them, because I don't claim you're wrong (I don't know.)

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, no one has ever given any specific examples of hands that should be played differently because of the time factor. That needs to be done before you can say that Snyder has it right on this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not the professional. It's not my place to interpret the theory. But I will say 2 things.
1) Harrington also gives examples where the hand should be played a different way because of quickly impending blinds. (Why have you not responded to the posts where these were quoted?) If you believe him, you should believe Snyder. (And I'm also in no place to critique those plays, but he laid out his M theory in such a way that it makes sense to me and I believe it, just like Snyder did.)
2) Snyder's theory just make sense, and does not contradict Harrington.

I would say it's up to you to prove your claims that Snyder's speed concepts are wrong. (By the way I recognize some specific hand examples could be debated without invalidating his theory). The onus is on you since you're the one who wrote the book review as a poker professional.

Some of your statements are quite transparent Mason. You are so concerned about trivial and silly copyright matters, and projecting the impression that all valid must have come from 2+2 authors, that you now lack objectivity.

There is nothing much presented in Snyder's book that's new other than the speed theory. So why exactly would you give it an 8 anyway? You discredit the only valid and important idea in the book, and then you act like it's a very fine book.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't understand modus operandi by many posters. When you can't refute someone's point and your (poster responding to you) reasoning is bogus, resort to insults. That's exactly what this poster is doing to you. He can't refute your points, his reasoning is bogus so now he resorts to insulting you. I tuned him out long ago when I realized he wasn't interested in any kind of intellectually honest dialogue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hardly. These aren't insults, they're merely observations. What I said is true. This is not the first time Mason has done this sort of thing - he did the same thing when reviewing ITH. Hilger was the model of professionalism, Mason turned into a whiney school child. My exact description is obviously opinion but everyone who read those threads knows the basic vibe I'm presenting is fact. Go read them and then come back and comment. It was a joke. I mean that literally, I met people in real life who were laughing about the lack of emotional maturity displayed.

Just so you don't think I lack objectivy, I read and recommend 2+2 books myself. I've certainly learned a few things from Mason's books (although frankly I think a lot less than I have from Harrington, Sklansky or Miller.) And I'll continue to recommend 2+2 books. And I'll continue to call out Mason when I think it's called for, too. Frankly I have no idea whatsoever about Mason's cash game results, and I'm not aware of any tournament results at all. (Compare that to Hilger's known results, for example.) But that doesn't mean I can't learn from Mason. I don't care whether you win a million or lose a million, as long as you can teach me to win.

I call it as I see it. Mason reviews books, I review Mason's comments in these threads and if my arguments don't persuade you - hey it's a free country. Mason's problem is that he's overprotective of 2+2 ideas to the extent that practially every idea he agrees with is derivative of something he (or 2+2) already wrote, and if it's not derivative then it must be flawed.

Look at his silly reply to the "NL cash games dying out" post. Mason predicted NL cash games would be dead. His response was not an admission that he was wrong, but he actually said "Well they actualy did." It's childish and silly. Even if they did become less popular for a time, it's clearly not for the reasons he gave - they were ludicrous and wildly wrong, and he can't admit it. Do you really need someone to explain to you why there are still bad players playing NL cash games? Do you really need someone like Mason trying to theorize to you why it can't possibly be happening?

So no, I don't accept the fact that he has complete integrity. By lack of integrity I mean lack of objectivity, for the sake of protecting his ego and laughable overprotection of 2+2. Someone with real integrity wouldn't fall for such nonsense, like a real solid poker player wouldn't go around tilting off their profits at the drop of a hat. Quotes from the Harrington book were typed here and he ignored them. In fact the argument has been laid out quite clearly, and all he has to do is say "Well no one provided any examples, so you're wrong", and hopes everyone coming late to the party just believes his explanation without doing the reading and thinking.

The argument has been laid out clearly, evidence has been presented that shows Harrington implicitly agrees with Snyder, and yet you will see either no reply from Mason, or you'll see another one saying "Snyder is wrong and I haven't seen any evidence otherwise." Whatever.

[Dr1Gonzo]

Guys, I really think this should be approached exactly like they do with scientific papers.
One party publishes something, the others publish a new paper either expanding, supporting, or explaining why something is wrong.

I think it would be useful if some new threads were started on this with specific mathematical / theoretical explanations. There are obviously enough people on either side of the argument, which lends itself to a scientific approach.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
Guys, I really think this should be approached exactly like they do with scientific papers.
One party publishes something, the others publish a new paper either expanding, supporting, or explaining why something is wrong.

I think it would be useful if some new threads were started on this with specific mathematical / theoretical explanations. There are obviously enough people on either side of the argument, which lends itself to a scientific approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go to town, guys!

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0#Post9181063

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
Harrington also gives examples where the hand should be played a different way because of quickly impending blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's not the same thing. Quickly impending blinds, or limits that go up in two or three hands, can occur no matter what the length of the rounds are.

[ QUOTE ]
Snyder's theory just make sense, and does not contradict Harrington.

[/ QUOTE ]

But not all the time. When Snyder gave me a copy of his book he told me that it was very similar to what was in Harrington II. And most of the time, but not all the time, in these fast tournaments your M will be low and it will therefore be similar to the advice in Harrington II.

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing much presented in Snyder's book that's new other than the speed theory. So why exactly would you give it an 8 anyway? You discredit the only valid and important idea in the book, and then you act like it's a very fine book.

[/ QUOTE ]

It got an 8 because it will help many people do better in these tournaments. The fact that he is giving advice which is usually accurate for low M situations and has nothing to do with tournament speed doesn't mean that following what he says won't allow many people to do better. That's part of the reason why the rating wasn't higher.

MM