The Poker Tournament Formula by Arnold Snyder...

[WRX]

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, what Snyder adds to "M" is the concept of "M-decay". It's sort of like radioactive half-life. Since doing nothing in a fast tournament will result in your M dropping faster than in a slow tournament, you have to make an adjustment for this. If you have an M of 10 in a slow tournament, your "decayed" M value might be 9.5 -- but in a super-fast tournament, it might be 3!


Snyder's point about taking some risks to stay in the green is also well taken. If you are a better than average player, it's worth taking risks to preserve your ability to deploy your full toolbox, and the faster the tournament, the more risk you should be willing to take. If your M is 30 and the rest of the table is around 10 (and diving fast), you've got a huge edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put.

Much of Arnold's critique of the theory that a player in the early stages of a tournament is better off not pursuing small advantages comes down to the point that in a fast tournament, rising blinds will put so much pressure on you that those small advantages are the best opportunities you're ever likely to get. Mason rejected this argument, and held to the position that tournament speed should not affect one's tournament strategy--that strategy should be dictated by current M, not by what M would become within a relatively short time.

Now, one should be careful to make the distinction that not all decisions are affected by tournament speed. There are decisions that even in a fast tournament, remain dictated mostly by current M. The value of coming into a pot with a drawing-type hand like the suited connectors is most greatly influenced by the implied odds if you hit a big flop--which is a function of the ratio between what it costs you to call the blinds or a small raise, and the amount you'll be able to bet after the flop and have called by another player. What M will be a few hands from now makes no difference to your implied odds for the current hand.

What's sad is that the debate became so venomous that it was impossible to have a courteous discourse, and until the past few days, there were hardly any intelligent comments to be found in these forums on the subject for several weeks. It's plain to me that Mason should have simply acknowledged that he made a mistake on this one point, and that Arnold should have likewise conceded error on one or two points, but neither would leave his ego out of it. It may be quite telling that for the last couple of months, they've both backed off from pontificating on the subject of fast tournament strategy.