The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an amazing paragraph. With only one exception that I know of, you could not find a no limit cash game that went on any sort of regular basis in a public cardroom for at least ten years. They only made a come back when no limit tournaments got on TV.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This one's right up there as well.

MM

[DrDonk]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that Snyder's point is that, given how fast the blinds rise in smaller tournaments, the odds that you'll get what you define as good hands are simply slim, sometimes none, and that you often need to mix it up with lesser hands if you want to survive long enough to profit from good hands. You can't sit and wait for good hands in these tournaments, because the blinds won't let you.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Talk about silly. Wow.

Where were all these N/L cash games about 5 years ago? Good luck trying to find one then. Becoming 'less popular' is a pretty big understatement. But, if not for reasons( ludicrous and wildly wrong ) he gave, then why did limit thrive while N/L went by the wayside?

If you read anything recent, or watched how popular holdem has become, you'd then realize why (mostly new)bad players came back to the game. Though it does help that they have capped buy ins(in most places). Which, from what I've seen/read they are lifting some of those caps. Which should, if they lift them high enough, or all the way, eventually kill many N/L games again. For obvious reasons. Imo, history would repeat itself.

b

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that Snyder's point is that, given how fast the blinds rise in smaller tournaments, the odds that you'll get what you define as good hands are simply slim, sometimes none, and that you often need to mix it up with lesser hands if you want to survive long enough to profit from good hands. You can't sit and wait for good hands in these tournaments, because the blinds won't let you.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if you read Harrington II you'll see that once your M gets low the exact same strategy applies, and it applies regardless of the length of the rounds. Furthermore, if you think about the tournaments that Snyder addresses, a great deal of the time you will be in these low M situations, but not all the time.

Best wishes,
Mason

[jimitilt]

Hi Mason,
Let me preface my questions by stating for the record that I have been called obtuse on more than one occasion and sometimes I just don't get it.
If we look at blind intervals as hands per hour(ie 45 hands per hour being my hypothetical number), and we have blind intervals of 20 minutes versus 60 minutes, why would speed not be a consideration in game adjustments? If a good player gets his edge from making better decisions than his opponents and you have a choice of 15 decisions per level versus 45 decisions per level you would pick 45 decisions. As blinds increase and your "M" decays you have fewer and fewer "green" zone opportunities. The longer the relative blind levels and your number of decisions per level, the greater the cumulative skill edge for good players. Why is speed not a significant consideration for choosing your tournament and your game adjustments? Isn't tournament speed similar to changing strategies from full ring to shorthanded play where hand values change and the implied odds for playing suited connectors and small pairs versus unsuited high cards are dictated by the changing game conditions. Why doesn't tournament speed get to be a factor in changing game conditions and require strategy changes? Why does "M" overide all these factors?
Regards
jimitilt

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Jimi:

You should be able to give hand examples where your strategy would be different because the blinds go up every 15 minutes than every 60. These examples don't exist. If they did, this thread and others would be full of them and this discussion would be over.

What's interesting is that it seems intuitive that tournament speed should matter in your strategy decisions, but it doesn't. Also, you are confusing the luck factor/skill factor that's present in tournaments and how you play your hands. There's no question that the slower tournaments are better for skilled players for precisely the reasons that you give, but that doesn't mean you play your hands any differently. All it means is that you have more opportunities to play your hands well.

By the way, this idea of tournament speed wasn't new with Snyder. It first appeared in McEvoys original tournament book which was published, and now is long out of print, over twenty years ago. My Gambling Theory book addressed this idea in its original edition in 1987 (and this stuff is still in the current edition) and the conclusions were exactly the same then as they are now. Snyder did not come up with a new and unique way of looking at tournaments even though he would probably like you to think so and may actually think that himself.

Best wishes,
Mason

[DrDonk]

I think the difference is that Snyder's approach is more proactive than your's, as the M factor approach doesn't broaden the hands you would play until AFTER you've become short stacked, whereas Snyder's approach involves being aggressive while you still have a competitive stack.

[Mason Malmuth]

What you're saying isn't accurate and you're starting to sound like Snyder. What we say, and what Snyder says we say are completely different.

MM

[jimitilt]

Hi Mason,
Let me ask my question a little differently. Given normal card distributions and staying with my 20 minute versus 60 minute blind intervals the shorter blind levels just won't give you a enough of a chance to use your skills most effectively. Why would this not necessitate broadening your opening hands requirements, say adding small unsuited Ace hands or any two over ten hands which are mathematically superior to random hands etc? This seems not like an intuitive adjustment but simply an adjustment due to being dealt fewer hands over the course of the tournament. It would seem to be a mathematical not intuitive consideration which should be able to be quantified with a tournament simulation program.(I have no idea how to do this) It just seems like a math problem to me.
regards
jimitilt

[Red_Diamond]

Welp, still not finished reading the whole thing here yet folks. I did however breif over the chapter regarding rebuys, which I may actualy re-read again over when I'm done this book.

So... did anyone spot any major flaws in that bit, or are we all green to go? :P