\"True M\" vs. Harrington\'s M: Critical Flaws in Harrington\'s M Theory
 

See article:

"True M" vs. Harrington's M: Critical Flaws in Harrington's M Theory, and Why Structure Matters

Re: \"True M\" vs. Harrington\'s M: Critical Flaws in Harrington\'s M Theory
 

I don't think the main issue with M is the number of rounds before you get blinded out if you fold everything.

If you have an M of 3, you increase your stack by 1/3 if you open push and no one calls, and you are getting 4-3 pot odds if you get one caller not in the blinds.

I think the bigger issue than the blinds going up is the ante. Having an M of 6 with 9K chips and 500/1000 blinds is not the same as having an M of 6 with 9K chips and 250/500/75 blinds. You would make different types of open raioses and reraises in the two cases.

Re: \"True M\" vs. Harrington\'s M: Critical Flaws in Harrington\'s M Theo
 

Firstly, I play turbos, so I appreciate a lot of the scenarios here although you specifically aim it at multi table tournament play.

1/
Most of your argument is based on B&M level timings and then you go on to mention the 12 minute online levels. A 12 minute online level is equivalent to about 24 - 36mins online...

2/
Apart from that, what you are essentially advocating here is that by taking risks you end up, at times [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img], with a massive chip stack in comparison to all the other players who will still be in Harrington's yellow.green zone or lower. Essentially the LAG approach identified in your book - an approach that I like.

3/ Your true M scenario does the same thing as Harrington's M in that it says to make a move when first in based on the figure rather than the table. If everyone else is still playing tightly as based on Harrington's M and you push in with some rags, you are only getting called by something better. It's possible that you are opening up your range far too early compared to the rest of the table.

?

Implicit Awareness
 

This (linked) post does an excellent job of showing why structure matters. Any reasonable person would agree that having 20BBs with 30 minutes before the blinds go up is better than having 20BBs with 15 minutes before the blinds go up.

The nice thing about Mr. Snyder's "true M" is that it does take structure into consideration in it's calculation. Most certainly it is more accurate at predicting the number of rounds one has remaining.

However, is this "true M" a good guide? While Mr. Snyder even agrees that calculating it is silly, he does so for different reasons than I propose here. My argument might be best demonstrated by example:

When a good player is told that he has an M of 10, he knows what that means. Yet, he doesn't think, "Gee, I can survive 10 more rounds before blinding out." Rather, he adjusts his play accordingly by IMPLICITLY taking into account how long before the blinds go up, table dynamics, and how many rounds he can play with a reasonable stack of chips.

In other words, good players implicitly know that an M of 10 doesn't mean they have 10 rounds left to play before blinding out. Good players make "mental estimations" of how long they have left to play given their current situation (chip stack, blinds, time left in level, table dynamics, etc.).

M is a simple heuristic to their mental estimation. And it does accurately tell a player his/her ratio of chips to blinds. Good players use this heuristic to adjust their play. It is actually very likely, that good players use M to make some sort of mental calculation that computes their "True M" as Mr. Snyder calls it.

In his article, Mr. Snyder demonstrates that structure matters when calculating M. No reasonable player would disagree. However, it is very likely that reasonable players who are accustom to particular blind structures already make these adjustments mentally.

Sherman

Re: Implicit Awareness
 

[ QUOTE ]
In his article, Mr. Snyder demonstrates that structure matters when calculating M. No reasonable player would disagree. However, it is very likely that reasonable players who are accustom to particular blind structures already make these adjustments mentally.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would think. However there have been numerous posts over the last year in the Books/Publications forum where Mason disagrees that tournament structure (speed) should have any impact on strategy whatsoever. He also claims to have asked Harrington if he agreed and reported that he did.

(As a sidenote if this really reflects Harrington's feelings I wonder how he would explain the logical inconsistancy of not adjusting for speed, but adjusting for a short handed game using "effective M.")

Re: Implicit Awareness
 

[ QUOTE ]
(As a sidenote if this really reflects Harrington's feelings I wonder how he would explain the logical inconsistancy of not adjusting for speed, but adjusting for a short handed game using "effective M.")

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone really think "effective M" matters? I certainly don't. Things like, "at short tables the blinds will gobble you up faster." don't make any sense to me. Thinking logically, at a 10 handed table one is expected to win %10 of the time (1 in 10 hands) on average assuming no skill. Well at a 5 handed table one is expected to win %20 of time (1 in 5 hands) on average assuming no skill. So, the shorthandedness of the table increases your equity in every pot before the cards are dealt.

Now one might argue that effective M is appropriate for short-handed tables because it shows that you need to play more hands. Well...it doesn't. The effective M only tells you that you have fewer hands before blinding out. The reason that you should play more hands at short-handed tables is because your starting equity in the pot is %20 before the cards are dealt! Which has absolutely nothing to do with the so-called "effective M."

End rant.

Re: Implicit Awareness
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In his article, Mr. Snyder demonstrates that structure matters when calculating M. No reasonable player would disagree. However, it is very likely that reasonable players who are accustom to particular blind structures already make these adjustments mentally.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would think. However there have been numerous posts over the last year in the Books/Publications forum where Mason disagrees that tournament structure (speed) should have any impact on strategy whatsoever. He also claims to have asked Harrington if he agreed and reported that he did.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it is so painfully obvious to me that structure matters. Try this little experiment:

Game 1: You start with 10 BBs and the blinds double every 5 minutes. On average, you will be dealt 3 hands every 5 minutes. Everyone always has you covered. You win if you achieve 100BBs. You lose if you bust out.

Game 2: You start with 10 BBs and the blinds double every 30 minutes. On average, you will be dealt 3 hands every 5 minutes. Everyone always has you covered. You win if you achieve 100BBs. You lose if you bust out.

Which game does a good player have a better chance in? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Re: \"True M\" vs. Harrington\'s M: Critical Flaws in Harrington\'s M Theory
 

I think opening with any 2 in any LP in any unraised pot with 3000 in chips with 100-200 blinds is maniacal as stated. This is the point in the tourney where you start stealing more but to assume you need to shove is a bit much. Too much so for me. I've made many a comeback to win when in worse spots using HOH's theory, although I do tend to ignore the 10-20 range.

M is not technicaly correct as you discussed (based on structures) but I find it builds the escalation into it in most structures and is very workable. I usually do start a bit earlier in turbos or speed tourneys than suggested in HOH, so that I agree with.

By the way... mentioning "misguided" theories in others books might not be the best way to get people read. A toned down "review" of others comes acrosss better IMHO.

Re: Implicit Awareness
 

tl;dr

Re: \"True M\" vs. Harrington\'s M: Critical Flaws in Harrington\'s M Theory
 

[ QUOTE ]
By the way... mentioning "misguided" theories in others books might not be the best way to get people read. A toned down "review" of others comes acrosss better IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it probably is the best way to get people to read it. Just not the best way to make friends.