M Ratios
 

What would be the advantages of looking at the average M of a tourney pool? Obviously it would change level to level, but as one of the players would knowing the average M be of value to me? What about a weighted average M?

Re: M Ratios
 

Your post is confuzzling to me. Do you mean "is there value in knowing the average M of everyone in the tournament"? If so, yes. Harrington talks about this number as Q, which is just the ratio of your stack to the average stack. Say your M is 10 and your Q is 1/2. Average M is just your M divided by your Q I think.

Did I help or hinder?

Re: M Ratios
 

Close, the average M would be the same calculation as determining your own M, only you use the average stack amount instead of you own stack amount. The advantage to knowing the average M is so that you can determine not only how aggressively you have to play but how aggressively the average opponent would have to play, as well.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean about a weighted average M?

Re: M Ratios
 

[ QUOTE ]
Close, the average M would be the same calculation as determining your own M, only you use the average stack amount instead of you own stack amount. The advantage to knowing the average M is so that you can determine not only how aggressively you have to play but how aggressively the average opponent would have to play, as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is of precisely no advantage at all. Figuring out the Ms of the other players at your table is obviously useful.


[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I understand what you mean about a weighted average M?

[/ QUOTE ]

You could weight it by how retarded the opposition is.

Re: M Ratios
 

Average M or Q, however you want to approach it, is just a rough guideline anyway. It shouldn't really be that strong a factor in your strategy unless your M situation is really good, and your Q situation is poor (and, to a degree, vice versa). If your M is 50 but somehow the average stack is quintuple yours, then you'd be in one of these oddball circumstances. Here you have a decent stack in an absolute sense, but are semi-short in a relative sense.

The main concern is your stack in relation to the antes/blinds, and the individual stacks of the other players you're immediately concerned with. You can't play versus the big stack or a shorty using "average M" figures.

Re: M Ratios
 

if your m is 5 but the average m is 3 and you are on the button you dont have to be as desperately aggressive as if the average m was 15. Also, if everyone but you has a real high m they will be calling you with anything so you need to adjust for that as well

Re: M Ratios
 

what about weighted average m, can anyone thing of how this might affect tourney stragey compared to regular average m??

Re: M Ratios
 

I disagree that there is no advantage to knowing the average M. If you are down to 2 or 3 tables in a tounament, knowing the average M would be a good indicator of what the pace of the tournament will be and may mean a significant difference in the payout, especially if you're already in the money.

Re: M Ratios
 

[ QUOTE ]
what about weighted average m, can anyone thing of how this might affect tourney stragey compared to regular average m??

[/ QUOTE ]

all weighted has to do with is how many players per table at a time

for example if your m is 5 that means at a full 10 person table you could fold 50 hands before busto
if your m is 5 but there are only 5 people at the table then your weighted m is 2.5 so you only have 25 hands before busto

s

Re: M Ratios
 

no, im talking about calculating Ms for everyone and then determining the weighted average M. i.e. one player has 1,000,000 in chips and 9 player have $100,000. The weighted average M here would be ~114.7368 (assuming blinds and antes =5,000), but this is different from a table that has 10 player each with 190,000 in chips. The weighted average M in this case is roughly 38.

thoughts on how this affects strategy??