[Radar_O'Reilly]

I think Mason is relying on too narrow a definition of M in this discussion.

In one sense, M is a formula. "Formula M" is your chip stack divided by the cost of a round. If I am reading Mason correctly, he is insisting that correct poker tournament strategy, regardless of tournament speed, is to always play according to Harrington's "Formula M." He specifically states, in the football analogy, that a good coach just sticks to his game no matter what.

But M has an underlying logic that is sometimes in conflict with "Formula M." Harrington puts it very well on p. 132 of Harrington on Hold'em II, where he says: "Another way of looking at M is to see it as a measure of just how likely you are to get a better hand in a better situation, with a reasonable amount of money left."

When you're in a situation where "Formula M" is declining particularly rapidly due to tournament structure, as in the Orleans Friday night tournament, Harrington's "Formula M" is a false measure, because it no longer indicates how likely you are to get a better hand in a better situation, with a reasonable amount of money left.

Arnold's insight is that tournament structure can require a recalibrating of Harrington's "Formula M" to keep it true to the underlying logic of M. His book provides not only this insight, and the proof to back it up, but detailed information on how to recalibrate "Formula M" for fast tournaments.