|
|
#403
05-22-2007, 08:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I am still confused
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think this is right. For me the M is a way to know how to play certain hands considering the size of my stack not how much orbits I have left. [/ QUOTE ] That doesn't make any sense. What do you need M for? To figure out your stack size, look at your stack size. M is a measure of how many more orbits you can survive. S = your stack size B = cost of blinds A = antes in pot S/(B+A) = number of orbits you have left = M Simple math. 
|
|
#404
05-22-2007, 08:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am still confused
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I look at it that way: My M doesn't tell me how to play to survive but how big my stack is in relation to blinds and antes. [/ QUOTE ] Why do you need a calculation of something like M to tell you how big your stack is in relation to the blinds? Just look at your stack and the antes and the blinds, and then you'll know how big your stack is in relation to the antes and blinds. [/ QUOTE ] So your saying... calculate your M but don't name it "I'm calculating my M" and that's it? [/ QUOTE ] No, I'm saying stack size in relation to the blinds just not require any calculation, and it's not M. If your stack size is $1,000 and the blinds are $25 and $50, then your stack size in relation to the blinds is $1,000 to $75. You don't need M to tell you that. M tells you something different.
|
|
#405
05-22-2007, 09:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am still confused
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I look at it that way: My M doesn't tell me how to play to survive but how big my stack is in relation to blinds and antes. [/ QUOTE ] Why do you need a calculation of something like M to tell you how big your stack is in relation to the blinds? Just look at your stack and the antes and the blinds, and then you'll know how big your stack is in relation to the antes and blinds. [/ QUOTE ] So your saying... calculate your M but don't name it "I'm calculating my M" and that's it? [/ QUOTE ] No, I'm saying stack size in relation to the blinds just not require any calculation, and it's not M. If your stack size is $1,000 and the blinds are $25 and $50, then your stack size in relation to the blinds is $1,000 to $75. You don't need M to tell you that. M tells you something different. [/ QUOTE ] Why does this remind me of Vanilla Ice defending his sampling of Under Pressure (wow,I hope I've got that right). It's completely different... See, my calculation gives $1000 to $75, M is $1000 divided by $75. Completely different, see? One is $1000 to $75, but the other one we divide...
|
|
#406
05-22-2007, 09:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am still confused
[ QUOTE ]
Why does this remind me of Vanilla Ice defending his sampling of Under Pressure (wow,I hope I've got that right). It's completely different... [/ QUOTE ] Yes, you've got it right. (Strangely, this was brought up at happy hour conversation this evening!) It's different because the person I was talking to doesn't know what he's talking about. M is measure of how many orbits you have left, not the relation of your stack size to the blinds. For one thing, that doesn't divide. For another, it doesn't take into consideration antes. For a third, it doesn't take into consideration the number of players at the table. Big difference there from Ice's single repeated note (same pitch, hence not noticeable to most people) when the previous 7 notes precisely matched Queen's, eh?
|
|
#407
05-23-2007, 01:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am still confused
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It's just the definition "how many rounds you'd survive" but not a factor to consider. [/ QUOTE ] "Not a factor to consider"? Huh? Anyway, the whole point of this discussion is that Harrington did not fully describe how many rounds you'd survive with his M calculation, which was his intention. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think this is right. For me the M is a way to know how to play certain hands considering the size of my stack not how much orbits I have left. i.e. I have 22 and my M's 60 do I call an UTG raise with a 60 M stack? Yes If my M's 10 I'm not calling it. The M didn't tell me if I should call because I have 10 orbits left it only says to consider my stack in the decision. At least that's the way I see it. [/ QUOTE ] This is exactly how I use M when I play, as you say, I don't think in terms of "how many rounds I can wait" I use it to make decisions on how to play my hands based on Harrington's zone system, not how many rounds I have. Of course the rounds are not ever going to be accurate because all tourneys have different blind structures and not to mention how many hands you see within that structure. I simply use M as a way to figure out what hands to play and how to play them based on the zone I'm in. Whether I'm in a turbo or regular slower tournament I'm basically playing my hands based on the zone I'm in (based on my M). What ends up happening is you get to play more hands within each zone in a slower tourney and less in a faster one, but the way I play them is the same based on the zone I'm in. I hope this makes sense, but I know there will still be disputes to what I'm saying regardless [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]
|
|
#408
05-23-2007, 10:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am still confused
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It's just the definition "how many rounds you'd survive" but not a factor to consider. [/ QUOTE ] "Not a factor to consider"? Huh? Anyway, the whole point of this discussion is that Harrington did not fully describe how many rounds you'd survive with his M calculation, which was his intention. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think this is right. For me the M is a way to know how to play certain hands considering the size of my stack not how much orbits I have left. i.e. I have 22 and my M's 60 do I call an UTG raise with a 60 M stack? Yes If my M's 10 I'm not calling it. The M didn't tell me if I should call because I have 10 orbits left it only says to consider my stack in the decision. At least that's the way I see it. [/ QUOTE ] This is exactly how I use M when I play, as you say, I don't think in terms of "how many rounds I can wait" I use it to make decisions on how to play my hands based on Harrington's zone system, not how many rounds I have. Of course the rounds are not ever going to be accurate because all tourneys have different blind structures and not to mention how many hands you see within that structure. I simply use M as a way to figure out what hands to play and how to play them based on the zone I'm in. Whether I'm in a turbo or regular slower tournament I'm basically playing my hands based on the zone I'm in (based on my M). What ends up happening is you get to play more hands within each zone in a slower tourney and less in a faster one, but the way I play them is the same based on the zone I'm in. I hope this makes sense, but I know there will still be disputes to what I'm saying regardless [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] I think what you say does make sense, I also think it validates Snyder's criticism in that if you use M this way in a fast tournament without some adjustment you will simply be playing too conservatively.
|
|
#409
05-24-2007, 02:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am still confused
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It's just the definition "how many rounds you'd survive" but not a factor to consider. [/ QUOTE ] "Not a factor to consider"? Huh? Anyway, the whole point of this discussion is that Harrington did not fully describe how many rounds you'd survive with his M calculation, which was his intention. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think this is right. For me the M is a way to know how to play certain hands considering the size of my stack not how much orbits I have left. i.e. I have 22 and my M's 60 do I call an UTG raise with a 60 M stack? Yes If my M's 10 I'm not calling it. The M didn't tell me if I should call because I have 10 orbits left it only says to consider my stack in the decision. At least that's the way I see it. [/ QUOTE ] This is exactly how I use M when I play, as you say, I don't think in terms of "how many rounds I can wait" I use it to make decisions on how to play my hands based on Harrington's zone system, not how many rounds I have. Of course the rounds are not ever going to be accurate because all tourneys have different blind structures and not to mention how many hands you see within that structure. I simply use M as a way to figure out what hands to play and how to play them based on the zone I'm in. Whether I'm in a turbo or regular slower tournament I'm basically playing my hands based on the zone I'm in (based on my M). What ends up happening is you get to play more hands within each zone in a slower tourney and less in a faster one, but the way I play them is the same based on the zone I'm in. I hope this makes sense, but I know there will still be disputes to what I'm saying regardless [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] I think what you say does make sense, I also think it validates Snyder's criticism in that if you use M this way in a fast tournament without some adjustment you will simply be playing too conservatively. [/ QUOTE ] I think maybe we need another number. M measures your stack/blind ratio at the current instant. We could define two numbers (which someone else may have already defined): O (orbits) which is M calculated over the rest of the tournament (Basically, how many orbits can you last, taking into account blind increases.) P (partial) which is M calculated over the next single orbit. If you have a blind increase on the 6th hand (assuming a 10 handed table) you'll get a value that's half way between your current M and the M after the blinds increase. In very fast tournaments, you may even get the blinds to go up twice in a single orbit. As you get closer to the blind increase, this value will decrease towards the value of M you will have after the blind increase. Neither O or P are exact numbers, since you can't be exactly sure of where the button will be when the blinds increase, but you can certainly get a good estimate. P will always be equal to or less than M. O will always be less than M. I think one of these numbers might be better to use than M, simple because I don't think you can play the same hand/stack the same way if it occurs in the first hand of a given blind level versus the last hand of a given blind level.
|
|
#410
05-24-2007, 02:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am still confused
[ QUOTE ]
I think maybe we need another number. M measures your stack/blind ratio at the current instant. We could define two numbers (which someone else may have already defined): O (orbits) which is M calculated over the rest of the tournament (Basically, how many orbits can you last, taking into account blind increases.) P (partial) which is M calculated over the next single orbit. If you have a blind increase on the 6th hand (assuming a 10 handed table) you'll get a value that's half way between your current M and the M after the blinds increase. In very fast tournaments, you may even get the blinds to go up twice in a single orbit. As you get closer to the blind increase, this value will decrease towards the value of M you will have after the blind increase. Neither O or P are exact numbers, since you can't be exactly sure of where the button will be when the blinds increase, but you can certainly get a good estimate. P will always be equal to or less than M. O will always be less than M. I think one of these numbers might be better to use than M, simple because I don't think you can play the same hand/stack the same way if it occurs in the first hand of a given blind level versus the last hand of a given blind level. [/ QUOTE ] See, now we're getting somewhere. Now I don't know if that's the right calculation or not, but clearly something like that is needed. Harrington thinks so too. He says things like "Your M is x, but the blinds go up within the next 2 hands." So he seems to know intuitively that his M strategy is incomplete.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
