Donk Bet Strategy Definition - Sports Predictions

Sednemi.racing

Sports Predictions

Donk Bet Strategy Definition

Category: Betting

Description

BETTING STRATEGY: definition of BETTING STRATEGY and synonyms of BETTING STRATEGY (English)

Betting strategy

A betting strategy or betting system is a structured approach to gambling intended to counter the inherent bias held by the house in casino and card games, by bookmakers in horseracing and sports betting, and other gambling situations. A successful strategy should increase the odds of winning in order to produce long term profits from a pursuit which under normal circumstances will only ever result in a long term loss.

All successful betting systems are predicated on statistical analysis, seeking to exploit the rare circumstances when the odds are in the favour of the player. [ citation needed ] Though the basis of all risk is fundamentally the same, betting systems vary in relation to the rules and circumstances of each particular game. Well-known betting systems include:

Independent events

The following betting strategies apply to games which operate on independent events. For such games, the odds of a particular outcome are identical for every bet played. No such strategy can beat the house edge (if any) in the long run, and all of them trade off many small wins for a big loss or vice versa.

Horse racing systems

Horse racing betting systems are based on a number of criteria, some of which include analysis of the horses' form.

Often horse racing systems are based on financial systems such as hedging (betting on multiple outcomes in a race) and arbitrage (lay the horse a low price and back it at a high price). Other horse racing systems exist which are based on items such as horse name, jockey form, trainer form, and lane draw. Modern horse racing systems can rely on specific betting possibilities only offered on betting exchanges.

The ineffective independent event systems in the above section can also be applied to horse racing.

External links

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

All translations of BETTING STRATEGY

sens a gent 's content

A windows (pop-into) of information (full-content of Sensagent) triggered by double-clicking any word on your webpage. Give contextual explanation and translation from your sites !

With a SensagentBox, visitors to your site can access reliable information on over 5 million pages provided by Sensagent.com. Choose the design that fits your site.

Improve your site content

Add new content to your site from Sensagent by XML.

Crawl products or adds

Get XML access to reach the best products.

Index images and define metadata

Get XML access to fix the meaning of your metadata.

Please, email us to describe your idea.

The English word games are:

Lettris is a curious tetris-clone game where all the bricks have the same square shape but different content. Each square carries a letter. To make squares disappear and save space for other squares you have to assemble English words (left, right, up, down) from the falling squares.

Boggle gives you 3 minutes to find as many words (3 letters or more) as you can in a grid of 16 letters. You can also try the grid of 16 letters. Letters must be adjacent and longer words score better. See if you can get into the grid Hall of Fame !

Most English definitions are provided by WordNet .

English thesaurus is mainly derived from The Integral Dictionary (TID).

English Encyclopedia is licensed by Wikipedia (GNU).

Change the target language to find translations.

Tips: browse the semantic fields (see From ideas to words) in two languages to learn more.

computed in 0.156s

Copyright © 2012 sensagent Corporation: Online Encyclopedia, Thesaurus, Dictionary definitions and more. All rights reserved.

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more

Other articles

Strategy - Definition and Features

MSG Management Study Guide Strategy - Definition and Features

The word “strategy” is derived from the Greek word “stratзgos”; stratus (meaning army) and “ago” (meaning leading/moving).

Strategy is an action that managers take to attain one or more of the organization’s goals. Strategy can also be defined as “A general direction set for the company and its various components to achieve a desired state in the future. Strategy results from the detailed strategic planning process”.

A strategy is all about integrating organizational activities and utilizing and allocating the scarce resources within the organizational environment so as to meet the present objectives. While planning a strategy it is essential to consider that decisions are not taken in a vaccum and that any act taken by a firm is likely to be met by a reaction from those affected, competitors, customers, employees or suppliers.

Strategy can also be defined as knowledge of the goals, the uncertainty of events and the need to take into consideration the likely or actual behavior of others. Strategy is the blueprint of decisions in an organization that shows its objectives and goals, reduces the key policies, and plans for achieving these goals, and defines the business the company is to carry on, the type of economic and human organization it wants to be, and the contribution it plans to make to its shareholders, customers and society at large.

Features of Strategy

  • Strategy is Significant because it is not possible to foresee the future. Without a perfect foresight, the firms must be ready to deal with the uncertain events which constitute the business environment.

  • Strategy deals with long term developments rather than routine operations, i.e. it deals with probability of innovations or new products, new methods of productions, or new markets to be developed in future.

  • Strategy is created to take into account the probable behavior of customers and competitors. Strategies dealing with employees will predict the employee behavior.

    Strategy is a well defined roadmap of an organization. It defines the overall mission, vision and direction of an organization. The objective of a strategy is to maximize an organization’s strengths and to minimize the strengths of the competitors.

    Strategy, in short, bridges the gap between “where we are” and “where we want to be”.

    Authorship/Referencing - About the Author(s)
    Main Subjects
    Premium Membership

    Management Study Guide is a complete tutorial for management students, where students can learn the basics as well as advanced concepts related to management and its related subjects.

  • GTORangeBuilder Blog: March 2014

    donk bet strategy definition

    RPS is great first game to look at when trying to learn and understand Nash equilibrium, because it's a game everyone knows and the equilibrium is simple to see and understand. While there is a lot to learn from RPS, extrapolating results from RPS to all games needs to be done with care.

    Second Price Auction

    A second price auction is a simple example of a game where the equilibrium strategy wins the absolute maximum possible against any opponent who makes mistakes.

    GTO in NLHE

    So how does GTO play fair against weak players in No Limit Hold’em? Unfortunately answering that question in general isn’t possible, but by thinking about why the RPS equilibrium performs so poorly, why the second price auction equilibrium performs so well, and by analyzing some example poker scenarios we can come to some pretty strong conclusions that GTO poker will beat fishy players who make a lot of mistakes.

    Shove or Fold

    So how can we quantify how well an Equilibrium strategy performs against weak players? In the past the only real options were to look at the performance of shove/fold strategies late in SnGs against players who fold too much, call too much, or against players who incorrectly weight hands (eg. they call with 87s but fold K3o against an opponent who is shoving 40% of hands).

    1. Heads up NLHE
    2. Blinds are 0.5/1
    3. Stacks are 15
    4. The small blind must either go all-in or fold.
    5. The big blind can then call or fold.

    1. Small Fish: calls about 10% too often (

    28%)

  • Medium Fish: calls about 25% too often (

    28%)

  • Huge Fish: calls about 100% too often (

    56% instead of 28%)

  • I calculated the EV for the small blind player of playing the GTO strategy against each of those four strategies and compared it to the EV of playing the maximally exploitative strategy. The maximally exploitative strategy is defined as the strategy that extracts the most value from your opponent, assuming you know exactly how he plays every single hand. I then normalized the win-rates by subtracting the GTO vs. GTO win-rate as that represents the inherent positional advantage that the big blind player has in this scenario.

    River Scenarios

    The analysis above should already make one highly skeptical of the idea that for some reason GTO poker is likely to just break even vs. fishy players, but it is limited to very specific scenario that ignores the vast majority of the types of decisions that poker players actually make in deep stacked poker.

    MP bets 6bb, Button folds, and the BB raises to 18bb, MP calls

    BB bets 30bb and MP calls.

    BB: 77-TT, 33, QhTh+, KhTh+, Ah2h-AhJh, 65s, 87s, T9s, JhTh

    I took this solution and put it into CREV, so that I could look at how these EVs change when the tight-passive MP player plays poorly.

    Conclusions

    In practice, I believe the best strategy is to start with something close to GTO and shift your strategy in the general direction of your opponent's weaknesses rather than trying to drastically changing your strategy to maximally exploitative every time you think you have a read on your opponents. This gives you the benefit of solid un-exploitable play as you develop your reads, combined with the payoff of moderately exploitative play as you develop reads on your opponents weaknesses. Furthermore, in a future post I'll demonstrate some specific mathematical methods that can be used to figure out exactly how one should shift from GTO based on general tendencies that exploit those tendencies while minimizing the potential for counter-exploitation by your opponent.

    Friday, March 21, 2014 Range Equity vs Range Balance -- Which matters more? The simplest example, the nuts/air vs. made hand

    Conclusions Wednesday, March 19, 2014 GTO Poker Outside of Heads Up -- What it solves and what it does not Nash equilibria defined: GTO in Heads Up:

    Suppose you are playing heads up vs a fish and you somehow are able to play perfect GTO poker, while the fish is not and makes many mistakes. You can imagine the mistakes the fish makes as him changing his own strategy from GTO to a weaker strategy. The definition above says he cannot possibly have gained EV by changing his own strategy. Furthermore, poker is zero-sum and you are the only other player so if he lost EV than you had to have gained that EV.

    Heads Up Subgames: GTO 3-handed

    (HERO) Small Blind EV: -11 bb / 100

    Big Blind EV: -8 bb / 100

    (HERO) Small Blind EV: - 17 bb / 100

    Big Blind EV: 2 bb / 100

    Conclusions: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 Range Building with Bluff Catchers

    The keys to being able to actually apply game theory to improve your poker game are to identify a situation where you know strategy is weak. I find that the easiest way to spot this situations are scenarios where either:

    1. I feel like my hand is face up and I am being taken advantage of or am being forced into complex "he knows that I know that my hand is face up" type of leveling mind games.
    2. I’m folding not because I think you have the worst hand but because I can’t think of a reasonable line to continue with.
    3. I regret my previous action because I feel like it just gave my opponent a chance to exploit me later in the hand.

    Once you've identified a leak in your strategy, you just need to think about what your range is and what your opponents range is at various points in the hand and look for clear weaknesses. Then you can start to figure out out how to adjust your play to plug the leak.

    1. Hero raises preflop to 3x, villain calls.
    2. Villian check calls a bet of 4bb on the flop.
    3. Both players check the turn.

    Hero Range: 7c5c, Ah9h, QsJh

    Villian Range: 6h5h, Td9d, Qc7h, 8s7d, Ks4c

    Hero Range: 7c5c, Ah9h, QsJh, Qh8h

    Villian Range: 6h5h, Td9d, Qc7h, 8s7d, Ks4c

    In scenario two, Qh8h has about 70% equity vs the villains range and manages to average winning close to 70% of the 14 chip pot with that hand. However, what is more powerful is that adding Qh8h to the players range increases his EV with all of his other hands. This means the total EV that we gain by putting Qh8h into our river range is the 9.16bb we earn when we have Qh8h plus the additional EV that we gain by increasing our expectation with our other hands. Even if we ignore the cases when we actually have Qh8h, our average EV with our other hands has increased from 3.33bb in scenario 1 to 4.19bb. On average we will win almost an extra bb every single hand with the weaker parts of our range just by making our entire range more defensible! In a game like HU where this type of river situation can easily happen once out of every 10 hands, this type of adjustment could have a 10bb/100 impact on our winrate. We've also managed to take a line that does at least as well with Qh8h as betting the turn is likely to.

    Thursday, March 6, 2014 Strategies, Nash Equilibria and GTO Poker
    1. Each player knows every other players strategy exactly
    2. Each player's strategy is maximizing their expected value against their opponents strategies.

    Nash Equilibria in Poker

    1. Take the Small Blind's strategy. Given the hand range that the Big Blind is calling our shoves with, can we increase our EV by folding any of the hands we are shoving? Or shoving any of the hands we are folding?
    2. Now take the Big Blind strategy. Given the hand range that the Small Blind is shoving with, can we increase our EV by calling with any hands we are folding? Or by folding any of the hands that we are calling with?

    Strategy: Definitions and Meaning

    Strategy: Definitions and Meaning

    © Fred Nickols 2012

    Introduction

    The concept of strategy has been borrowed from the military and adapted for use in business. A review of what noted writers about business strategy have to say suggests that adopting the concept was easy because the adaptation required has been modest. In business, as in the military, strategy bridges the gap between policy and tactics. Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap between ends and means (Figure 1). This paper reviews various definitions of strategy for the purpose of clarifying the concept and placing it in context. The author's aim is to make the concepts of policy, strategy, tactics, ends, and means more useful to those who concern themselves with these matters.

    Figure 1 - Strategy & Tactics

    Some Language Basics

    Strategy is a term that comes from the Greek strategia, meaning "generalship." In the military, strategy often refers to maneuvering troops into position before the enemy is actually engaged. In this sense, strategy refers to the deployment of troops. Once the enemy has been engaged, attention shifts to tactics. Here, the employment of troops is central. Substitute "resources" for troops and the transfer of the concept to the business world begins to take form.

    Strategy also refers to the means by which policy is effected, accounting for Clauswitz’ famous statement that war is the continuation of political relations via other means. Given the centuries-old military origins of strategy, it seems sensible to begin our examination of strategy with the military view. For that, there is no better source than B. H. Liddell Hart.

    Strategy According to B. H. Liddell Hart

    In his book, Strategy [1], Liddell Hart examines wars and battles from the time of the ancient Greeks through World War II. He concludes that Clausewitz’ definition of strategy as "the art of the employment of battles as a means to gain the object of war" is seriously flawed in that this view of strategy intrudes upon policy and makes battle the only means of achieving strategic ends. Liddell Hart observes that Clausewitz later acknowledged these flaws and then points to what he views as a wiser definition of strategy set forth by Moltke: "the practical adaptation of the means placed at a general’s disposal to the attainment of the object in view." In Moltke's formulation, military strategy is clearly a means to political ends.

    Concluding his review of wars, policy, strategy and tactics, Liddell Hart arrives at this short definition of strategy: "the art of distributing and applying military means to fulfil the ends of policy." Deleting the word "military" from Liddell Hart’s definition makes it easy to export the concept of strategy to the business world. That brings us to one of the people considered by many to be the father of strategic planning in the business world: George Steiner.

    Strategy According to George Steiner

    George Steiner, a professor of management and one of the founders of The California Management Review, is generally considered a key figure in the origins and development of strategic planning. His book, Strategic Planning [2], is close to being a bible on the subject. Yet, Steiner does not bother to define strategy except in the notes at the end of his book. There, he notes that strategy entered the management literature as a way of referring to what one did to counter a competitor’s actual or predicted moves. Steiner also points out in his notes that there is very little agreement as to the meaning of strategy in the business world. Some of the definitions in use to which Steiner pointed include the following:

    • Strategy is that which top management does that is of great importance to the organization.
    • Strategy refers to basic directional decisions, that is, to purposes and missions.
    • Strategy consists of the important actions necessary to realize these directions.
    • Strategy answers the question: What should the organization be doing?
    • Strategy answers the question: What are the ends we seek and how should we achieve them?

    Steiner was writing in 1979, at roughly the mid-point of the rise of strategic planning. Perhaps the confusion surrounding strategy contributed to the demise of strategic planning in the late 1980s. The rise and subsequent fall of strategic planning brings us to Henry Mintzberg.

    Strategy According to Henry Mintzberg

    Henry Mintzberg, in his 1994 book, The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning [3], points out that people use "strategy" in several different ways, the most common being these four:

    1. Strategy is a plan, a "how," a means of getting from here to there.
    2. Strategy is a pattern in actions over time; for example, a company that regularly markets very expensive products is using a "high end" strategy.
    3. Strategy is position; that is, it reflects decisions to offer particular products or services in particular markets.
    4. Strategy is perspective, that is, vision and direction.

    Mintzberg argues that strategy emerges over time as intentions collide with and accommodate a changing reality. Thus, one might start with a perspective and conclude that it calls for a certain position, which is to be achieved by way of a carefully crafted plan, with the eventual outcome and strategy reflected in a pattern evident in decisions and actions over time. This pattern in decisions and actions defines what Mintzberg called "realized" or emergent strategy.

    Mintzberg’s typology has support in the earlier writings of others concerned with strategy in the business world, most notably, Kenneth Andrews, a Harvard Business School professor and for many years editor of the Harvard Business Review.

    Strategy According to Kenneth Andrews

    Kenneth Andrews presents this lengthy definition of strategy in his book, The Concept of Corporate Strategy [4]:

    "Corporate strategy is the pattern [italics added] of decisions in a company that determines and reveals its objectives, purposes, or goals, produces the principal policies and plans for achieving those goals, and defines the range of business the company is to pursue, the kind of economic and human organization it is or intends to be, and the nature of the economic and non-economic contribution it intends to make to its shareholders, employees, customers, and communities. (pp.18-19)."

    Andrew’s definition obviously anticipates Mintzberg’s attention to pattern, plan, and perspective. Andrews also draws a distinction between "corporate strategy," which determines the businesses in which a company will compete, and "business strategy," which defines the basis of competition for a given business. Thus, he also anticipated "position" as a form of strategy. Strategy as the basis for competition brings us to another Harvard Business School professor, Michael Porter, the undisputed guru of competitive strategy.

    Strategy According to Michael Porter

    In a 1996 Harvard Business Review article [5] and in an earlier book [6], Porter argues that competitive strategy is "about being different." He adds, "It means deliberately choosing a different set of activities to deliver a unique mix of value." In short, Porter argues that strategy is about competitive position, about differentiating yourself in the eyes of the customer, about adding value through a mix of activities different from those used by competitors. In his earlier book, Porter defines competitive strategy as "a combination of the ends (goals) for which the firm is striving and the means (policies) by which it is seeking to get there." Thus, Porter seems to embrace strategy as both plan and position. (It should be noted that Porter writes about competitive strategy, not about strategy in general.)

    Strategy According to Kepner-Tregoe

    In Top Management Strategy [7], Benjamin Tregoe and John Zimmerman, of Kepner-Tregoe, Inc., define strategy as "the framework which guides those choices that determine the nature and direction of an organization." Ultimately, this boils down to selecting products (or services) to offer and the markets in which to offer them. Tregoe and Zimmerman urge executives to base these decisions on a single "driving force" of the business. Although there are nine possible driving forces, only one can serve as the basis for strategy for a given business. The nine possibilities are listed below:

    1. Products offered
    1. Production capability
    1. Natural resources
    1. Market needs
    1. Method of sale
    1. Size/growth
    1. Technology
    1. Method of distribution
    1. Return/profit

    It seems Tregoe and Zimmerman take the position that strategy is essentially a matter of perspective.

    Strategy According to Michel Robert

    Michel Robert takes a similar view of strategy in, Strategy Pure & Simple [8], where he argues that the real issues are "strategic management" and "thinking strategically." For Robert, this boils down to decisions pertaining to four factors:

    1. Products and services
    1. Market segments
    1. Geographic areas

    Like Tregoe and Zimmerman, Robert claims that decisions about which products and services to offer, the customers to be served, the market segments in which to operate, and the geographic areas of operations should be made on the basis of a single "driving force." Again, like Tregoe and Zimmerman, Robert claims that several possible driving forces exist but only one can be the basis for strategy. The 10 driving forces cited by Robert are:

    1. Product-service
    1. Sales-marketing method
    1. User-customer
    1. Distribution method
    1. Market type
    1. Natural resources
    1. Production capacity-capability
    1. Size/growth
    1. Technology
    1. Return/profit
    Strategy According to Treacy and Wiersema

    The notion of restricting the basis on which strategy might be formulated has been carried one step farther by Michael Treacy and Fred Wiersema, authors of The Discipline of Market Leaders [9]. In the Harvard Business Review article that presaged their book [10], Treacy and Wiersema assert that companies achieve leadership positions by narrowing, not broadening their business focus. Treacy and Wiersema identify three "value-disciplines" that can serve as the basis for strategy: operational excellence, customer intimacy, and product leadership. As with driving forces, only one of these value disciplines can serve as the basis for strategy. Treacy and Wiersema’s three value disciplines are briefly defined below:

    1. Operational Excellence
    1. Customer Intimacy
    1. Product Leadership

    Each of the three value disciplines suggests different requirements. Operational Excellence implies world-class marketing, manufacturing, and distribution processes. Customer Intimacy suggests staying close to the customer and entails long-term relationships. Product Leadership clearly hinges on market-focused R&D as well as organizational nimbleness and agility.

    What Is Strategy?

    What, then, is strategy? Is it a plan? Does it refer to how we will obtain the ends we seek? Is it a position taken? Just as military forces might take the high ground prior to engaging the enemy, might a business take the position of low-cost provider? Or does strategy refer to perspective, to the view one takes of matters, and to the purposes, directions, decisions and actions stemming from this view? Lastly, does strategy refer to a pattern in our decisions and actions? For example, does repeatedly copying a competitor’s new product offerings signal a "me too" strategy? Just what is strategy?

    Strategy is all these—it is perspective, position, plan, and pattern. Strategy is the bridge between policy or high-order goals on the one hand and tactics or concrete actions on the other. Strategy and tactics together straddle the gap between ends and means. In short, strategy is a term that refers to a complex web of thoughts, ideas, insights, experiences, goals, expertise, memories, perceptions, and expectations that provides general guidance for specific actions in pursuit of particular ends. Strategy is at once the course we chart, the journey we imagine and, at the same time, it is the course we steer, the trip we actually make. Even when we are embarking on a voyage of discovery, with no particular destination in mind, the voyage has a purpose, an outcome, an end to be kept in view.

    Strategy, then, has no existence apart from the ends sought. It is a general framework that provides guidance for actions to be taken and, at the same time, is shaped by the actions taken. This means that the necessary precondition for formulating strategy is a clear and widespread understanding of the ends to be obtained. Without these ends in view, action is purely tactical and can quickly degenerate into nothing more than a flailing about.

    When there are no "ends in view" for the organization writ large, strategies still exist and they are still operational, even highly effective, but for an individual or unit, not for the organization as a whole. The risks of not having a set of company-wide ends clearly in view include missed opportunities, fragmented and wasted effort, working at cross purposes, and internecine warfare. A comment from Lionel Urwick's classic Harvard Business Review article regarding the span of control is applicable here [11]:

    "There is nothing which rots morale more quickly and more completely than . . . the feeling that those in authority do not know their own minds."

    For the leadership of an organization to remain unclear or to vacillate regarding ends, strategy, tactics and means is to not know their own minds. The accompanying loss of morale is enormous.

    One possible outcome of such a state of affairs is the emergence of a new dominant coalition within the existing authority structure of the enterprise, one that will augment established authority in articulating the ends toward which the company will strive. Also possible is the weakening of authority and the eventual collapse of the formal organization. No amount of strategizing or strategic planning will compensate for the absence of a clear and widespread understanding of the ends sought.

    The Practical Question: How?

    How does one determine, articulate and communicate company-wide ends? How does one ensure understanding and obtain commitment to these ends? The quick answers are as follows:

    The ends to be obtained are determined through discussions and debates regarding the company's future in light of its current situation. Even a SWOT analysis (an assessment of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) is conducted based on current perceptions.

    The ends settled on are articulated in plain language, free from flowery words and political "spin." The risk of misdirection is too great to tolerate unfettered wordsmithing. Moreover, the ends are communicated regularly, repeatedly, through a variety of channels and avenues. There is no end to their communication.

    Understanding is ensured via discussion, dialog and even debate, in a word, through conversations. These conversations are liberally sprinkled with examples, for instances, and what ifs. Initially, the CEO bears the burden of these conversations with staff. As more people come to understand and commit to the ends being sought, this communications burden can be shared with others. However, the CEO can never completely relinquish it. The CEO is the keeper of the vision and, periodically, must be seen reaffirming it.

    Ultimately, the ends sought can be expressed via a scorecard or some other device for measuring and publicly reporting on company performance. Individual effort can then be assessed in light of these same ends. Suppose, for instance, that a company has these ends in mind: improved customer service and satisfaction, reduced costs, increased productivity, and increasing revenues from new products and services. It is a simple and undeniably relevant matter for managers to periodically ask the following questions of the employees reporting to them:

    • What have you done to improve customer service?
    • What have you done to improve customer satisfaction?
    • What have you done to reduce costs?
    • What have you done to increase productivity?
    • What have you done to increase revenues from new products and services?

    The Decisions Are the Same

    No matter which definition of strategy one uses, the decisions called for are the same. These decisions pertain to choices between and among products and services, customers and markets, distribution channels, technologies, pricing, and geographic operations, to name a few. What is required is a structured, disciplined, systematic way of making these decisions. Using the "driving forces" approach is one option. Choosing on the basis of "value disciplines" is another. Committing on the basis of "value-chain analysis" is yet a third. Using all three as a system of cross-checks is also a possibility.

    Some Fundamental Questions

    Regardless of the definition of strategy, or the many factors affecting the choice of corporate or competitive strategy, there are some fundamental questions to be asked and answered. These include the following:

    • Related to Mission & Vision
    1. Who are we?
    2. What do we do?
    3. Why are we here?
    4. What kind of company are we?
    5. What kind of company do we want to become?
    6. What kind of company must we become?
    • Related to Corporate Strategy
    1. What is the current strategy, implicit or explicit?
    2. What assumptions have to hold for the current strategy to be viable?
    3. What is happening in the larger, social and educational environments?
    4. What are our growth, size, and profitability goals?
    5. In which markets will we compete?
    6. In which businesses?
    7. In which geographic areas?
    • Related to Competitive Strategy
    1. What is the current strategy, implicit or explicit?
    2. What assumptions have to hold for the current strategy to be viable?
    3. What is happening in the industry, with our competitors, and in general?
    4. What are our growth, size, and profitability goals?
    5. What products and services will we offer?
    6. To what customers or users?
    7. How will the selling/buying decisions be made?
    8. How will we distribute our products and services?
    9. What technologies will we employ?
    10. What capabilities and capacities will we require?
    11. Which ones are core?
    12. What will we make, what will we buy, and what will we acquire through alliance?
    13. What are our options?
    14. On what basis will we compete?
    Some Concluding Remarks
    1. Strategy has been borrowed from the military and adapted for business use. In truth, very little adaptation is required.
    2. Strategy is about means. It is about the attainment of ends, not their specification. The specification of ends is a matter of stating those future conditions and circumstances toward which effort is to be devoted until such time as those ends are obtained.
    3. Strategy is concerned with how you will achieve your aims, not with what those aims are or ought to be, or how they are established. If strategy has any meaning at all, it is only in relation to some aim or end in view.
    4. Strategy is one element in a four-part structure. First are the ends to be obtained. Second are the strategies for obtaining them, the ways in which resources will be deployed. Third are tactics, the ways in which resources that have been deployed are actually used or employed. Fourth and last are the resources themselves, the means at our disposal. Thus it is that strategy and tactics bridge the gap between ends and means.
    5. Establishing the aims or ends of an enterprise is a matter of policy and the root words there are both Greek: politeia and polites—the state and the people. Determining the ends of an enterprise is mainly a matter of governance not management and, conversely, achieving them is mostly a matter of management not governance.
    6. Those who govern are responsible for seeing to it that the ends of the enterprise are clear to the people who people that enterprise and that these ends are legitimate, ethical and that they benefit the enterprise and its members.
    7. Strategy is the joint province of those who govern and those who manage. Tactics belong to those who manage. Means or resources are jointly controlled. Those who govern and manage are jointly responsible for the deployment of resources. Those who manage are responsible for the employment of those resources—but always in the context of the ends sought and the strategy for their achievement.
    8. Over time, the employment of resources yields actual results and these, in light of intended results, shape the future deployment of resources. Thus it is that "realized" strategy emerges from the pattern of actions and decisions. And thus it is that strategy is an adaptive, evolving view of what is required to obtain the ends in view.

    This paper has taken a broad, multi-faceted look at the subject of strategy. Some readers might go away disappointed that no final, unambiguous definition of strategy has been provided. The quick response is that there is none, that strategy is a broad, ambiguous topic. We must all come to our own understanding, definition, and meaning. Helping the reader do so is the chief aim of this paper.

    References
    1. Strategy (1967). B. H. Liddell Hart. Basic Books.
    2. Strategic Planning (1979). George Steiner. Free Press.
    3. The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning (1994). Henry Mintzberg. Basic Books.
    4. The Concept of Corporate Strategy , 2 nd Edition (1980). Kenneth Andrews. Dow-Jones Irwin.
    5. "What is Strategy?" Michael Porter. Harvard Business Review (Nov-Dec 1996).
    6. Competitive Strategy (1986). Michael Porter. Harvard Business School Press.
    7. Top Management Strategy (1980). Benjamin Tregoe and John Zimmerman. Simon and Schuster.
    8. Strategy: Pure and Simple (1993). Michel Robert. McGraw-Hill.
    9. The Discipline of Market Leaders (1994). Michael Treacy and Fred Wiersema. Addison-Wesley.
    10. "Customer Intimacy and Other Value Disciplines." Michael Treacy and Fred Wiersema. Harvard Business Review (Jan-Feb 1993).
    11. "The Span of Control." Lionel Urwick. Harvard Business Review (May-Jun 1956).
    Related Reading

    There are other strategy-related articles on my web site. The links are provided below. The links in red are to .pdf versions.

    © Sports Predictions 2018