I"ll probably do the same.

Hopefully this doesn't mean another 2+2 magazine writer will "rip off" whatever new Snyder formulas come to light again :P

Which magazine writer did this?

Shame on you. Nothing was ripped off. But I suspect you already knew that.

MM

Frankly, I feel the same way as Red_Diamond about Dene's articles. I found it interesting considering 2+2's over-the-top lack of tolerance for borrowed ideas.

I find it interesting also, just not shocking...

I agree with both statements 1000%.

You should look here:

http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/show...e#Post10701624


MM

Mason, you are right, I already knew that. I specifically put it in quotation to state what HIS words were when I last saw him post on the forum. And for the reccord, I believe I did state somewhere at the time that I thought he was jumping to conclusions and getting a little too over-protective about HIS formula.

I admit they were similar concepts, and I suppose Snyder thought they were just TOO similar.

I did and wished I hadn't. My opinion of Mason just went lower. I found his behavior and demeanor unprofessional especially with posting part of an email from Snyder that looks like it contained personal information that Mason did not bother stripping out until another poster told him how bad it was to have left it in initially.

I hadn't seen this either, and, like you, wish I hadn't. It wasn't that long ago that Mason and David S. were discounting the issue of having an exacy copy of a hand example from one of the Super Systems in Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players.

I guess the self interest theory that one or both of them have proposed so strongly is really at play here.

The irony is that I'll continue to buy their books, as will everyone else, which will merely confirm attitudes and behaviours more than the criticism here will make cause for reflection.

Come on. The fact that the name Karen is used is totally meaningless. If you don't believe this just ask any professional blackjack player and they will laugh at this suggestion. Those complaints came from people who had an agenda to discredit us. Also, keep in mind that Snyder now has written on his website articles that state Harrington had it all wrong, and that Sklansky and I give terrible advice, and the advice that he claims we gave isn't even close to what we said. That excerpt explains things a bit differently, and it will be used whenever this stuff comes up.

MM

That excerpt, and your explanation above, does not excuse your unprofessional behavior in my opinion. And would you care to prove what agenda you seem to think these people had?

You seem to take great umbrage at people supposedly making false claims against you, but you seem to do the same thing to them (make possibly false claims).

FWIW, I have no agenda other than trying to learn and to get better at poker.

That link does nt open

Works for me.

That really does nothing to bolster any counterclaim.

>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.

Key word is "publishing". It is 2+2 that published it, and they are at least as responsible. This is a lame/irrelevant argument.

>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.

Yes, it's easier to calculate because it's a watered down version.

Another lame argument, that reminds me of Vanilla Ice trying to claim he didn't use Queen's "Under Pressure" melody. There are 7 notes in the Queen tune. Vanilla Ice plays those exact 7 notes, repeats the last note one time to make 8 notes, and then claims it's a different melody because of that. I suppose if you use that logic, these 2+2 articles from Tribe are completely original.

"'Ice Ice Baby' sampled the 1981 Queen and David Bowie collaboration 'Under Pressure' without permission, acknowledging credit or paying royalties; Ice even denied in an interview on MTV that the song was sampled, despite the tracks' undeniable melodic similarities."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanilla...all_from_grace

Vanilla Ice being dragged into a disagreement about who wrote what first in poker literature; I think I can safely say I've seen it all now.

While this books seems worth a read, I am quite reluctant to buy it after visiting Arnold Snyder's website and reading through most of this humongous thread that was already mentioned: http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/show...0&fpart=1&vc=1

Snyder's website has an article on HoH2 that is a very petty attempt to discredit Harrington's concepts and 2+2 over trivial semantics. And most of the more vigorous advertisement in that thread obviously comes from
- his wife, apparently
- some newbie members
- "jeffnc" who was usually classless and made some cheap insults that were proven to be untrue. He seems to be banned now.

That doesn't mean the book is bad. But it raises some questions about how confident the author is in his own concepts.

The biggest issue I have is that Mason Malmuth's crucial question that he keeps asking remains unanswered in all the hundreds of replies: actual hand examples on how the speed of the tournament effects play.

There were two vague concepts mentioned: limping with any two on the button and calling raises with any two in late position. The first one isn't exactly revolutional. The second one is more interesting, but how it translates into huge chip gains I don't really see. But there is not a single real hand that shows how it's done.

Also, several people raised the question what the use of staying in the Green Zone is when most other players are Yellow or Orange, other than having more chips than them. Sadly no answers either.

And finally, how you really handle doubling blinds is never addressed. You desperately try to steal before they go up? But how valuable is stealing 300 chips at 100/200 when you are in for 400 on the big blind right after? In other words, should you steal with an M of 10 to have an M of 5.5 next hand instead of just 5?
That's something that even Mason can't really answer, or only very vaguely, and it's not addressed in HoH2 either. Probably because doubling the blinds sucks for the players, but the reality is it happens in tons of (live) tournaments so it's a concern for many players.

Again, I'm not saying the content is worthless. But so far I don't see what's in it that isn't in HoH already. Probably not put as explicitly there, but still there if applied correctly.

When it says "banned" under someone's name, i hope it means that the person chose that it says this, and NOT that 2+2 has ACTUALLY banned them for disagreeing with Mason.

This is the second time you've mentioned this. Please, do you honestly expect anyone to believe he doesn't know this?

The book is pretty good. Certain specifics are debatable, such as his overly loose aggressive (or loose passive, depending on how you look at it) play from the button.

But the book is for fast tournaments, not slow. He refers you to Harrington et al for slow tournaments.

Furthermore, Snyder is correct. Harrington's M is not complete and does not account for rate of change. Harrington himself alludes to this in at least one example I recall, so Harrington must be at least vaguely aware that he did not completely flesh out this formula. Regardless of what Malmuth et al say on 2+2, rate of change of M is significant and should affect your decisions (again, as Harrington showed with one of his examples.)

Mason, is your original review of the Poker Tournament Formula still available somewhere? I've tried searching the forums and read the big discussion thread on this book, but can't find any working link, because the specific 2+2 internet magazine issue is no longer available. I'd really like to read it.

Fine but how?

Read Snyder's book.

I would if he didn't come off as a major douchebag.

To even consider reading a book of a major douchebag, I have to be convinced it's worth it.

One actual hand example would be a start.

Snyder stated that the conventional wisdom about tournament play is not correct for fast tournaments and explained why and what to do about it. I recall no time when he was other than civilized in questioning the opinions of other writers.

Some of his supporters got somewhat belligerent (and even personal) at times, but I don't believe Arnold ever did.


One hand is meaningless in talking about the speed of a tournament and the impact that it has on strategy. Being told that a particular hand should be played one way in a fast tournament and differently in a slow one tells you nothing about why and when you should do that. You have to first understand how speed affects the play of a tournament, and what impact that has on correct strategy.

Um, excuse me??? Obviously you have not read this "article" which Snyder even advertised on the old 2+2 forum: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...egy_True_M.htm

Some quotes? Well let's start with the title: "Critical Flaws in Harrington's M Theory". Yup, very classy.
Towards the end:
"And, though many of the top players know that looser, more aggressive play is what’s getting them to the final tables, I doubt that Harrington’s misguided advice will be abandoned by the masses any time soon."
"[Zolotow] added nothing to the theory of M, and is clearly as ignorant of the math as Harrington is."

And this article by that "Radar O'Reilly" character is even worse: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/..._vs_Snyder.htm

"In focusing on M, Harrington is focused on survival, on giving himself the best possible chance of hitting "good cards." He is focused on calculating the cost of a round because he wants to know how long he can go without playing a hand before he gets short or blinded-off."
"Therefore, Snyder's strategy is superior to Harrington's. Let me say that again, to make it absolutely plain: You will make more money in tournaments with Snyder's strategy than you will with Harrington's strategy."

The whole piece is simply disgusting, trying to put down HoH by distorting the theories that are in it and painting Harrington as a weak-tight rock waiting for aces and kings and getting blinded out.

Now Snyder stated originally that his strategies are applicable mainly in super-fast tournaments, while HoH is for slower structures. Again, I'm not sure that HoH is limited in that way, but okay, it's something worth arguing over.
But why does he then feel the need to elevate his book by putting down HoH, instead of saying his book is complementary to it? That's very low-class.
Obviously, with his second volume coming out, he intends to replace Harrington altogether. He won't succeed, even if he keeps resorting to foul play.