Why BB and not M?
 

I've red the first book, and am now reading the second book in the HoH seies, and a question that I keep getting is:
Harrington talkes a lot about M (the size of the pot before the hands starts), but I feel most STT strategy (push/non-push) is talked about in Big Blinds. Why is that?
Seems that the M system is more korrekt. Harrigton even has S&Gs as examples in his book.

Thankful for any info I can get on this, and also thanks for the great forum guys!

Re: Why BB and not M?
 

not everyone has read harrington

Re: Why BB and not M?
 

why? Simple answer:

Because when the Antes kick in (if they do... FTP doesnt have antes in SnG) it will prolly be with <5 players at the table, and therefor the antes arent contributing a significant extra amount to the pot. If it were 9-10 people paying antes, it'll be a different situation though and you would need to take into account your M. Hence the reason why mr Harrington has adopted M as a standard in his books (mostly MTT related).

Re: Why BB and not M?
 

Harrington's SNG advice sucks. M is a more correct metric but BB is easier to figure out on the fly. Since most SNGs (at least back when the SNG community standardized this) don't involve antes, BBs wins.

Re: Why BB and not M?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Harrington's SNG advice sucks. M is a more correct metric but BB is easier to figure out on the fly. Since most SNGs (at least back when the SNG community standardized this) don't involve antes, BBs wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also forum predates Harrington's books.

legacy.

Re: Why BB and not M?
 

Well, the only adveice I got from "the BB thing" was that you want to push with less then 10 BBs. Nothing more. Have I missed something, sice you guys seem to find that better?

Re: Why BB and not M?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Harrington's SNG advice sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take it back!

Harrington pwned tourney poker with that book

Re: Why BB and not M?
 

Harrington's SnG advice sucks.

Re: Why BB and not M?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Harrington's SNG advice sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take it back!

Harrington pwned tourney poker with that book

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe me, if Slim ever writes a book, you won't be saying that.

Re: Why BB and not M?
 

listen to what harrington says on SNGs, then see what happens to your ROI. I have a feeling that they are inversely correlated.


(reasons already stated).

Re: Why BB and not M?
 

Almost everyone that gets into STTs after the Harrington book asks this question. The best answer has already been given. I'll treat it more delicately. Harrington's multi-table tournament advice is pretty good, especially for a beginner. It will keep you out of trouble and make you play aggressively for the big prize at the end. The prize structure for a big MTT is so different than that of a STT that you can't even begin to share advice for the two. STTs reward survival, MTTs aggression. While STTs reward playing like a... weak tight nit... MTTs start like a cash game and then typically get even more aggressive near the bubble to chip up and bully, whereas it is not uncommon in 2nd place in an STT to have to lay down AK to a big stack that is guaranteed to be pushing any 2 (in fact, you'd often want him to be on a tighter range than this if calling) STTs are about survival, and Harrington only touches on the ICM subject that drives almost every move of a good STT player. He arrived too late on the scene, and you can pretty much throw his advice out, as far as good STT advice goes. Its almost as if a cash game player tried to write a book for STTs. It's just obvious to good players that many of his recommendations are spewy. I'm pretty sure that if Harrington had brought any new advice to STTs that we may actually have started using M. If you want real insight into the core ideas that changed STTs, look up some old eastbay posts in the archives. Additionally, disagree with fishing-- antes matter a ton, its just that all good players know the difference between t200+25 and t200 on stars, also, Slim is for the most part usually right, so I'd deffer to him if you still have doubts. Also, what amt said.

Re: Why BB and not M?
 

It really doesn't matter what you use. We don't really use BBs, or M per se. We basically make our decisions based on ICM and reads.

For any # of BB, there is obviously an equivalent M.

Re: Why BB and not M?
 

[ QUOTE ]
if Slim ever writes a book

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be a good book! Slim needs to ship a text to Mason. Maybe even find someone to co-author it with him so it will get done quicker.

Ship it Slim!

Re: Why BB and not M?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Harrington's SnG advice sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]