[WRX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Simple extreme example to make it easy for anyone to grasp. Blinds are 25/50, your stack is 1,000. You are on the button and your M is 13. Blinds go up after each hand. Next hand, your M is 7. Next hand your M is 4. Next hand your M is 3. Next hand your M is 2. You only been dealt 5 hands, you've folded each of them, you haven't paid an ante, and you haven't paid a blind. Your M has dropped from 13 to 2. And you think that won't affect your strategy?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the scenario I kept thinking of when I read all Mason's reubuttals, and was going to post it myself when I got to the end of the thread. Clearly in this situation your 'dynamic' (and rather harder to quantify) M is much more important than your 'formula' or 'static' M.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both Mason and Dan Harrington have acknowleged that in an extreme example like this, where the blinds will go up in just one, two, or three hands, strategy is greatly influenced by your impending M, and not just your current M. The debate has been over less extreme situations, such as fast tournaments in which the blinds go up every 15 minutes.

[ QUOTE ]
Now M as HOH defines it is clearly not meant for this sort of game, so let's go to a slightly less extreme example, where blinds go up every orbit, but you start with an M of 30. I think it's clear that here limping 44 on the button would be a terrible idea, since even though you are currently in the green zone every blind is precious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why a terrible idea? By limping, you risk a very small part of your stack, while your implied odds are high. (You are hoping to flop a set and double up.) Surely this is an example of the kind of play as to which strategy is not much affected by the speed of the tournament, or if such is the case, the fact that the blinds will increase very soon.