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

[Mason Malmuth]

I post this.

First off, the fact is that since Dene Tribe is obviously referring to Snyder when he talks about a more complicated system that is reason alone for him to also mention Snyder’s name whether or not he independently came up with his own system.

However, I think everyone would find this excerpt from a Snyder email to me dated July 3, 2006 illuminating.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, when I read Harrington II, I was amazed at how similar my chip strategy chapter was to much of his advice. My entire book was actually written by the end of 2004, but Cardoza was so late on getting two other manuscripts I'd sent him to press, that I never sent him the poker manuscript. I updated some of the material by adding in data from the 2005 WSOP, none of which was in the original manuscript. By that point, I had almost quit playing tournaments. Karen and I were doing so well online, that the money from these small buy-in tournaments seemed negligible. The comments I make on Harrington II in my book were really pasted in long after I had developed the strategy I was using. I really did devise the whole thing starting from Sklansky's "System."

[/ QUOTE ]

Now let me address the Tribe article just a little bit. First off, I don't know Dene Tribe at all, and I have requested through our magazine editor Dynasty that Tribe be made aware of this thread so that he can come here and address these issues if he wishes to do so.

In a post below, MRX5000 writes:

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I do believe along with yourself that you deserve some type of credit about you're blinding off theory (I'll just call it that because simply put it's how long it takes to blind out). The other formula seems like an abbreviation of this formula. But to be honest, your formula seems almost identical to Harringtons. Did you realize that Harrington adjusts his M according to the number of players at the table and a correction factor can be added based on how many hands per hour? Now take into account the zone theory he comes up with and you pretty much have the same theory as yourself except it 2 times 2 instead of 2 plus 2. The answer is still 4

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. If Snyder wants credit for his blinding off theory/patience factor approach, let this post serve as my official recognition of it. Furthermore, I will state that as far as I know, Snyder was the first to put this sort of thing in a published book, report, article, etc.

But I also want it known, that I agree with MrX5000 that "your formula seems almost identical to Harringtons." And furthermore, unless I'm misreading the email I have from almost a year ago, that at least back then, Snyder did too.

MM

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
...I have requested through our magazine editor Dynasty that Tribe be made aware of this thread so that he can come here and address these issues if he wishes to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dene was contacted by e-mail a couple days ago and told of this thread.

[scrublie]

It seems to me Tribe's article is using Harrington's M factor. I just read a article from Snyder on his site bashing the M factor, claiming it not an accurate way to evaluate tournaments. But Snyder wants to be mentioned in Tribe's article for coming up with this evaluation system?

[Your Mom]

Saying Mason or 2+2 doesn't give credit to other authors is just silly. Ed's original book gives credit to that author that has a long standing feud with 2+2 (his name escapes me at this time, but he used to always be on RPG).

[tribet]

I am Dene Tribe and let me apologize for not responding to this thread earlier. I have been traveling the past few days and was unaware of it.

It was my oversight in not referring to Arnold Snyder in my article "Poker Tournament Evaluation System" as the original publisher of the blind off system.

I will contact the editor and ensure that this is corrected. The omission was completely unintentional, my fault and in no way reflects on the integrity of 2+2 publishing.

Thank You for bringing it to my attention and I will ensure it doesn't happen again.

I disagree with Arnold Snyders statement "Tribe's system is nothing more than a watered-down version of my patience factor method and the skill level system on my book. There is absolutely nothing original in his method"



The 2 systems are different and I would like to highlight some of them.

My system starts with an analysis of the starting "M" and blinds the chips for 1 hour and assigns a 1 hour "M". These are useful calculations and can be used to develop a strategic plan for the tournament. The poker tournament formula assigns a blind off time which i think is less useful

My system is much easier to calculate and this has the added advantage that players can quickly evaluate an unfamiliar tournament in short order.

The skill ratings are simplified and different

In summary I developed my system as a user friendly way to quickly analyse a tournament and on the importance of always knowing your "M" and how fast it is changing and the ability to quickly adapt. The article was only intended as an introduction to the system due to the space constraints of a magazine article, but I hope it gives readers a different way of evaluating a tournament. I have much more to say about the system in the future and perhaps this will be highlight how different it is.

Sincerely

Dene Tribe

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]

Dene Tribe

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much only Tribe (and Dynasty) approached this issue professionally and politely. Congrats.

There of course is an easy solution to preventing this in the future.

[Zim]

The sad part here is the lack of etiquette displayed by Mr. Malmuth.

Within the advantage play community, privacy is one of the most valuable commodities. Mason is fully aware of this, but does not hesitate to disclose personal information the moment conflict arises.

This has come up a number of times, and it is no accident.

Regrets,
Zim

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
The sad part here is the lack of etiquette displayed by Mr. Malmuth.

Within the advantage play community, privacy is one of the most valuable commodities. Mason is fully aware of this, but does not hesitate to disclose personal information the moment conflict arises.

[/ QUOTE ]

Horrendous. That Mason can even continue to post here without being completely ashamed of himself is astounding. Worse than just unprofessional and unethical, but that's an understated start.

[Mason Malmuth]

Everytime Snyder puts up a post here that is either a personal attack on any of us or a link to some sort of bizarre and misleading article where he claims our strategy advice is far different than what it actually is, I plan to repost this paragraph so that any new readers here will have a better understanding of what is happening.

Also, any time you and/or any of your buddies post in this thread, keep in mind that all you do is bring attention back to information which you are obviously concerned about.

MM

[WRX]

[ QUOTE ]
Everytime Snyder puts up a post here that is either a personal attack on any of us or a link to some sort of bizarre and misleading article where he claims our strategy advice is far different than what it actually is, I plan to repost this paragraph so that any new readers here will have a better understanding of what is happening.

Also, any time you and/or any of your buddies post in this thread, keep in mind that all you do is bring attention back to information which you are obviously concerned about.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason, I'm replying to your message within about 20 minutes of the time you put it up, so it shouldn't draw much additional attention. As far as jeffnc, or Zim, or Arnold being buddies with me, no, we're not, and for that matter I have no reason to think that they're buddies with each other.

But skilled players of blackjack and other casino games, without exception, recognize standards that above all respect the anonymity of other advantage players. It's an absolute necessity. Otherwise, careers can be ruined. You know that as well as anyone. You used to play a lot of blackjack. You've written about blackjack. You're far better positioned to understand the importance of this than a small-time amateur like me. And that's why people are commenting, here and elsewhere.

I don't agree with the brickbats that have come from both sides over the past few months. But none of that matters. However poorly you think you've been treated, it does not justify taking things to the next level, trying to disrupt another player's play.

When I first saw your original message, a few hours after you put it up, I sent you a polite, private inquiry, asking if it was revealing personal information on a person closely associated with Arnold. You haven't responded. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, your latest message strongly implies that you received personal information from Arnold in confidence, and that you are now revealing it, in deliberate violation of that confidence, because you are angry.

Unfortunately, about 5,000 people have seen your original message by now. But I would still suggest that you do the right thing, and edit it to remove personal information. That is something you could have easily done in the first place, while still including enough of Arnold's e-mail message to you, needed to make your point.

What is it that you think will make people respect you? Is it your ability to match your adversary in hurling insults? Your willingness to do him harm?