|
|
#341
02-15-2007, 01:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I completely agree with the snyder on the issues of speed...
BTW, I have to side with Mason here - no specific hand example (and no one has given one) implies Mason is right.
|
|
#342
02-15-2007, 02:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I completely agree with the snyder on the issues of speed...
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I have to side with Mason here - no specific hand example (and no one has given one) implies Mason is right. [/ QUOTE ] Tournament strategy is never that simplistic.
|
|
#343
02-15-2007, 04:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I completely agree with the snyder on the issues of speed...
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ] They can occur? Obviously. They do occur much more often when the blinds go up fast. Just imagine a structure where the blinds actuall do go up every 3 hands. There's an extreme example of a fast tournament where you are obviously forced to change your strategy not just on that one hand, but in general. No hand examples required. This should be fairly easy to understand.
|
|
#344
02-15-2007, 04:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I completely agree with the snyder on the issues of speed...
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I have to side with Mason here - no specific hand example (and no one has given one) implies Mason is right. [/ QUOTE ] A specific hand example was already quoted from Harrington's book. And even if it hadn't been, it wouldn't imply anything like that.
|
|
#345
02-15-2007, 04:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I completely agree with the snyder on the issues of speed...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] BTW, I have to side with Mason here - no specific hand example (and no one has given one) implies Mason is right. [/ QUOTE ] A specific hand example was already quoted from Harrington's book. And even if it hadn't been, it wouldn't imply anything like that. [/ QUOTE ] That example was grossly insufficient to defend Snyder's position. Is that really the best you have? Mason's looking more and more right here, and you more and more wrong.
|
|
#346
02-15-2007, 05:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I completely agree with the snyder on the issues of speed...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] That's not the point. The point is that the reason you gave for NL drying up IS WRONG. You said it's too easy for the good players to wipe out the bad players, so therefore the bad players would not play any more and only good players would be playing each other and hardly anyone would make any money. That's WRONG. [/ QUOTE ] Actually, no, it's precisely what happened. [/ QUOTE ] Are you actually reading, or just knee-jerk reacting after having picked sides? It's WHAT happened, it's not WHY it happened. If Mason's reasons were correct, there would also not be any NL thriving today. The gap between good and bad players should still manifest itself more in NL than limit today, should it not? How exactly did NL make a comeback if the good players kept the bad players tapped out? The lull in NL was related to popularity of the game, not some fictional fixed "bankroll" of a pool of weak players. The vast majority of poker players are recreational, not professional or professional wannabe. That means they don't have a "bankroll", and they can't get "wiped out". They lose money playing poker in Las Vegas, (or perhaps even win, playing at a table full of other bad players). They go back to work, and return in 6 months for another trip with $800 more to lose (or perhaps win). Maybe 5 or 10 or 20 years from now, NL or even Texas Holdem for that matter will have fallen out of favor. But it certainly won't be because bad players lost all their money 5 or 10 or 20 years prior. It will simply be because the players prefer to lose their money playing something else. Mason either doesn't understand why bad players play and where the money comes from, or he understands but won't admit his ideas are wrong. I can't figure out which makes him less credible.
|
|
#347
02-15-2007, 05:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I completely agree with the snyder on the issues of speed...
[ QUOTE ]
Are you actually reading, or just knee-jerk reacting after having picked sides? It's WHAT happened, it's not WHY it happened. If Mason's reasons were correct, there would also not be any NL thriving today. The gap between good and bad players should still manifest itself more in NL than limit today, should it not? How exactly did NL make a comeback if the good players kept the bad players tapped out? [/ QUOTE ] Mason was correct both as to the reason and as to the result. Notice WHY the games didn't go - no fish. There were plenty of interested sharks. That was precisely the reason he gave - the idiots were all tapped out. The reason NL is temporarily thriving now is that there's been a major cash infusion from the poker boom. But the NL economy is shrinking as we speak, and will likely die out again. Score: Mason 2, you 0. And we're not even out of the first quarter yet [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
|
|
#348
02-15-2007, 05:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
an example for mason....
If i am in a tournament with an M of 20 and the rounds are 90 mins, If i knew that i was in a coin flip for all of my chips, i might pick a better spot. If i had the same stack in a tournament with 15 min levels , I would very easily take that same coin flip. My m isnt the factor here, its the fact that the blinds will rise so quickly and i will have to play hands much faster than normal.
This is my opinion and i think its valid. You cant just sit there and and say that this reasoning has no merit to it. Well I guess you can, but your thoughts aren't facts. I myself can't deny that the speed of the tournament will change my decisions.
|
|
#349
02-15-2007, 05:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am still confused
[ QUOTE ]
We have only more recently realized that Harrington's strategies are weak in slow tournaments as well. [/ QUOTE ] I like snyders work but this is just plain dumb. Harringtons work is amazing for playing against anyone. I guess its just luck that he made it to back to back final tables, and also that he won back in 95'. Snyder is very ignorant for saying this.
|
|
#350
02-15-2007, 05:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: an example for mason....
[ QUOTE ]
If i am in a tournament with an M of 20 and the rounds are 90 mins, If i knew that i was in a coin flip for all of my chips, i might pick a better spot. If i had the same stack in a tournament with 15 min levels , I would very easily take that same coin flip. My m isnt the factor here, its the fact that the blinds will rise so quickly and i will have to play hands much faster than normal. This is my opinion and i think its valid. You cant just sit there and and say that this reasoning has no merit to it. Well I guess you can, but your thoughts aren't facts. I myself can't deny that the speed of the tournament will change my decisions. [/ QUOTE ] So you're saying that you believe your expected cashout more than doubles by taking a flip for stacks on the first hand? Just asking, because that's provably false. Check GTaOT.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
