\"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.

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

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]


You would? I guess I miss the point here, because I'm open pushing and calling pushes with identical ranges here, WITH M=6. Had you said m+10 or higher, I can see how smaller raises in the last ante situation would be preferable, especially had the table/opponent been playing passively. Am I missing something important here???

Re: Implicit Awareness
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I didn't say I agreed with Mason, I don't. I was just pointing out that he has taken extreme issue in the past with tournament speed having any bearing on anything.

Regarding effective M. I think your rant is getting to the same conclusion as effective M would lead you most of the time. I realize you get there for slightly different reasons. You, because your hand that might be marginal at a full table is more likely to be good short handed. Harrington because with a lower M you have to lower your starting requirements because you can't afford to wait for a better hand due to the impact of blinds and antes. But aren't both reasons valid?

Regardless I think your way of thinking about this is better. This is because if you are stacked deep enough to be in Harrington's green zone at a short handed table I believe this could lead you to maintain the same starting requirements as at a full table. (Possibly this isn't true if you adjust based on your position relative to the button, playing utg as if it were MP for example.) Your approach would loosen starting requirements due to short handedness, not stack size.

Good theory, wrong in practice
 

[ QUOTE ]




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.

Sherman

[/ QUOTE ]


This is one of the best posts I've ever seen on this forum, and its so true. I didn't even remember reading about "hands until you get blinded out" because seriously, who thinks about that? My mental heruistic is 'how likely I will be to push a better hand, weighted against the risk that my stack will diminish and therefore my fold equity/reward if I win, weighted against different opponent tendencies (which affect fold equity).' M is just the crutch I use as logic to get me in the right aggressive frame of mind.

I poker, however, it is typically the most profitable to do the opposite of what the table is doing, and in that perspective author might be on to a good point, IN THEORY. I don't see, however, that open pushing most any two hands with Harringtons M=20 (his method, say 6ish) can be right. In most any online tournament you will spend basically the entire tournament near or under a Harrington m=20. Therefore, he's advocating a single table tournament like 'push botting' in say, the $20x180 or $10 stars rebuy. Yes, you occasionally get big stacked, but seriously how often are you above m=20 with say 20-30 players left? And push botting - or close to it - with Harrington M=20 is rediculous, since you are risking your stack to increase your chips 5%?

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

I can see what Snyder is saying here and I mostly agree with him. But at the end of the day these books are really just guidelines for the less experienced players. Have a look at the MTT strategy posts on here, or watch some of the videos on PokerXFactor, and you can see how the best players split the stack sizes into a stealing stack ; a re-stealing stack (which isn't a stealing stack because it's right for others to re-steal v you) ; and a stack that's big enough to steal again because the re-steal by an opponent is no longer efficient. This kind of thinking is what the "next level" of tournament book should aspire to and hopefully this won't come out for a while.

On the topic of "real" Ms, I've never really thought of M as being "how many rounds you have left". It's simply a measure of your stack vs the dead money in the pot, and this determines whether an open-shove (with small M) is +EV or not (along with hand strength and position), as of this hand. If a shove is +EV, I'm shoving, whether the blinds are going up in 2 hours or 2 seconds (except in some edge case where I'm UTG and the blinds are about to double or something).

In addition, both books grossly underestimate the effect of position on short-stack shoving decisions, if they mention it at all. I do like Snyder's book but his shove recommendations are wrong in particular where he's advising to shove with various hands irrespective of how many people are still to act, because this is a big factor.

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

[ QUOTE ]
tl;dr

[/ QUOTE ]

Summary: Harrington´s M is not a good concept because it does not include tournament structure, which is crucial.

The rest of the 10.000 words, Snyder is repeating over and over again how superior his concept of "number of BBs" is to Harrington´s M.

Re: Good theory, wrong in practice
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see, however, that open pushing most any two hands with Harringtons M=20 (his method, say 6ish) can be right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to nitpick, but if I'm understanding the section you're referencing then this isn't what he's saying. This is when your stack is 20 big blinds or less, not an M of 20 or less. At 20BBs M would be 14 or less (depending on whether there are antes). I'm not likely to open-push 20BBs with any two cards from LP either, but wanted to clarify that he isn't saying to push 30BBs+ which is what an M of 20 would imply.

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

This is the classic 2+2 style of negative self-promotion though. Find a flaw, however trivial, in your rival's book. Then sink your teeth into it like a bulldog and never let go. Never.

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

I'm inclined to agree with Sherman on this nearly 100%. Harrington's M is a guideline, not an absolute rule. And like any guideline, it is subject to interpretation and modification based on the current situation. Part of using M to evaluate your current position in a tournament is being aware of the structure, and knowing that your M might change soon. Harrington himself notes on a few occasions that you might alter your decision process based on the fact that the blinds are going to go up soon. This, and the discussion of "effective M" are evidence that the concept of M is not an absolute, but is merely a starting point from which to derive your actual decision.

--TFGoose

P.S. Mr. Snyder - in the future I propose that you take a more academic approach to the bashing of your fellow poker colleagues. Even if you don't agree with Harrington, a large collection of the poker world does, and you should take that into account before taking such a bullish approach against his theories. To use the old adage, "you get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar." Maybe next time, go with "Clarifying M: An Alternative Method for Calculation and Usage".

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

I enjoyed Snyder's analysis, but I think the consideration of time is overrated here. If you interpret Harrington's M= to number of rounds left and use it as a guide to "survival" then I think it is definitely being misused. Snyder knows this. But I agree that most good players have recognized that when your M<5 it's all about fold equity and stepping it up. If your M is <5 in a structure that's 10 minutes or 100 minutes, it doesn't matter... It's time to make a move. Great thread.

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

lol

this guy is ridiculous, obv so offended that his book is not being taken seriously. what a fragile ego

and to be honest i think he missed the point of M. One way of thinking of it was how many orbits you can survive. But yeah, this only becomes relevant when u are very shortstacked.

i use M to determine how much FE I have and how much post flop play i have. i dont use it to guess how long i wait it out to make the money or whatever

he suggests using the BB as an indicator, but I prefer M because it gives me a better perspective on my situation considering antes that are in play

so yeah, that guy should get over himself.

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

[ QUOTE ]
But in HOH II, he clearly states that M tells you how many rounds of the table you will survive—period . . . His book tells us that he assumes an M of 20 simply means 20 rounds remaining—which we know is wrong for all real-world tournaments

[/ QUOTE ]These statements demonstrate that either you have reading comprehension issues or you feel it necessary to distort the teachings of others to make yours look better. Neither option gives me much reason to take you seriously.

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

I will agree with OP that using Harrington's zone strategy from HOH2 is going to result in suboptimally tight play in the super turbo structures like the daily tournaments found in a lot of casinos.

Also I think structure is something people maybe don't consider enough. It's really rarely mentioned in any of the hand evaluations. I play mostly 15 min levels on Stars but I know I am more inclined to take a big risk say at the 100/200/25 level knowing the next level is going to change the complexion of the tournament drastically.

Re: Implicit Awareness
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. I didn't say I agreed with Mason, I don't. I was just pointing out that he has taken extreme issue in the past with tournament speed having any bearing on anything.

[/ QUOTE ]Why would the blindspeed have any bearing on the subject? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

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

Coming to post at 2+2 to promote your book and spouting this crap: [ QUOTE ]
”Zolotow’s “CPR” articles were simply a couple of columns he wrote last year in which he did nothing but explain Harrington’s M theory, as if it were 100% correct. He added nothing to the theory of M, and is clearly as ignorant of the math as Harrington is."

[/ QUOTE ]

Arnie - you come off as a wanna-be intellectual douche who makes himself feel better by putting down others. Harrington's ideas are well respected and I highly doubt he is ignorant of the math involved.

As someone else said:
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe next time, go with "Clarifying M: An Alternative Method for Calculation and Usage".

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But in HOH II, he clearly states that M tells you how many rounds of the table you will survive—period . . . His book tells us that he assumes an M of 20 simply means 20 rounds remaining—which we know is wrong for all real-world tournaments

[/ QUOTE ]These statements demonstrate that either you have reading comprehension issues or you feel it necessary to distort the teachings of others to make yours look better. Neither option gives me much reason to take you seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]
I read this guy's articles on why Sklansky was wrong to say you shouldn't take even gambles for your whole stack in tournaments. Some of what Sklansky said isn't always true, but Snyder acted like he had refuted Sklansky.

As far as M is concerned, the issue of how many rounds till you blind out is not the most important thing.

It seems like he is making really trivial points and acting like he has discovered something earthshaking.

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

nothing new here

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

I wonder who has made more money at tournament poker?

Anyways, I read this book and liked it-
it put into words exactly what I thought was true.

Regarding the M factor -- it's more accurate than #BB's in tournaments-noduh.

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

Can someone who is either the OP or agrees with the OP answer this for me (I admit I haven't read the article because it's really really long): What are these adjustments that we make when the structure is worse? Is the OP really suggesting that we make -cEV plays if the blinds are going to go up soon? Because otherwise, he's not really disagreeing with Harrington at all (as I recall, Harrington suggests taking any and all +cEV edges, except in unusual circumstances)

Steve

P.S. I strongly disagree with the idea that tournament structure has a substantial impact on strategy in all but the most extreme cases.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone who is either the OP or agrees with the OP answer this for me

[/ QUOTE ]

Steve,

I hesitate to try because you are, if not smarter than me, definitely a better poker player. I don't always agree 100% with OP, although I do on most things. He may also stop by and tell you my explanation is wrong. Now that I've got the disclaimers out of the way I'll give it a shot. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

What is a +cEV play? Anything that on average will win more chips than we lose, right? OP doesn't suggest we make -cEV plays since, by definition, continually doing that guarantees you'll lose. What he suggests is that you look for your +cEV plays that aren't always based purely on your cards. Is a blind steal +cEV? How about calling a pre-flop raise (with positon) from a player you've identified as weak tight with the intention of taking away the pot on the turn if he shows any weakness? I'm sure you've done both of these at some point.

If Harrington really believes you should always take all +cEV edges then why would he suggest when you get short stacked that you have to loosen up your starting requirements. Does the hand that isn't good enough with a bigger stack suddenly become profitable due to you having less chips?

We make adjustments due to a quicker structure because we are (or should consider ourself to be) desperate quicker than using Harrington's zone system would indicate.

[ QUOTE ]
P.S. I strongly disagree with the idea that tournament structure has a substantial impact on strategy in all but the most extreme cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly I don't see how anyone can believe this. Possibly if you read Snyder's book instead of basing your opinion on a quick browse in the bookstore you'd feel differently. Then again, maybe not.

Al

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

Steve,

If I read it correctly, the OP's post had little to do with cEV at all and making +cEV moves. It had everything to do with demonstrating that M doesn't take into account the fact that the blinds may change.

Basically, if you are at the table and you have and M of 10, you don't necessarily have 10 rounds left before you are blinded out (especially online) because the blinds will have gone up at least once (maybe two or three times) in those 10 rounds that you had left, which effectively changes your M each time.

Thus, if one wanted to calculate his or her "true M" you would need to estimate how many rounds (or hands) you would have to play at each blind level and how many times you would have to play the blinds/antes at each level. The math, while not complicated logically, is a bit cumbersome to do especially at the poker table.

While this "true M" is a more accurate prediction of when you will blind out, Snyder suggests that you shouldn't compute it and should just ignore it completely. Rather than following M or "true M" one should follow the strategies outlined in his book (which I know you have discussed some of before).

Many people took his article as Sklansky/Malmuth/Harrington bashing, but I really didn't. Anyhow, I've got to go, so I might summarize some more later.

Sherman

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

[ QUOTE ]
Steve,

I hesitate to try because you are, if not smarter than me, definitely a better poker player. I don't always agree 100% with OP, although I do on most things. He may also stop by and tell you my explanation is wrong. Now that I've got the disclaimers out of the way I'll give it a shot. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate the effort [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
What is a +cEV play? Anything that on average will win more chips than we lose, right? OP doesn't suggest we make -cEV plays since, by definition, continually doing that guarantees you'll lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yes and no...there are some spots which some people will argue are -cEV but +$EV. I'm still on the fence about whether I think those exist but was unsure if that's why the author was arguing or not.

[ QUOTE ]
What he suggests is that you look for your +cEV plays that aren't always based purely on your cards. Is a blind steal +cEV? How about calling a pre-flop raise (with positon) from a player you've identified as weak tight with the intention of taking away the pot on the turn if he shows any weakness? I'm sure you've done both of these at some point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everybody does these things and I'm sure if you asked Harrington he'd agree as well. But whether those are profitable plays in a given hand is based on: a) your cards (which always have at least a minor importance) b) effective stacks c) your opponents tendencies d) respective images, players to act and their stacks/tendencies, flow of the game, etc. etc. but NOT how soon the blinds go up. (I'll come back to this)

[ QUOTE ]
If Harrington really believes you should always take all +cEV edges then why would he suggest when you get short stacked that you have to loosen up your starting requirements. Does the hand that isn't good enough with a bigger stack suddenly become profitable due to you having less chips?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it does. Hand values change substantially as stack sizes change. A9o is complete trash when you have 50bb's but a pretty solid hand when you have 5. I do think Harrington tends to err on the tight side, but if I remember correctly his approach is to take anything he perceives to be +EV.

[ QUOTE ]
We make adjustments due to a quicker structure because we are (or should consider ourself to be) desperate quicker than using Harrington's zone system would indicate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean you're pushing hands earlier? Playing more hands? If so, why aren't you playing these hands in the slower structure? Are you purposely passing up +cEV plays in the slow structure to "wait for a better spot"? If so, why? I feel like what you're actually arguing is that Harrington plays too tight. Maybe that's true but how tight you should play is based so much on table dynamics that it's not really a fair criticism.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
P.S. I strongly disagree with the idea that tournament structure has a substantial impact on strategy in all but the most extreme cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly I don't see how anyone can believe this. Possibly if you read Snyder's book instead of basing your opinion on a quick browse in the bookstore you'd feel differently. Then again, maybe not.

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't really have a firm opinion on Snyder's book because like you said, I haven't really read it. What I did read had some clearly wrong ideas (e.g. calling any two on the button to a raise) but maybe he addresses those later. Anyways, that's not really the point of this thread.

Here is a very quick explanation of why I don't believe structure matters in tournaments. Like I said before, whether or not playing a hand is profitable depends on a lot of factors, including current blinds, chips stacks, images/abilities of others and yourself, etc. But the fact that the blinds are going to go up in 5 minutes instead of 10 certainly doesn't change the cEV of a given play. So the only arguments in favour of structure mattering is that in fast structures you have to take -EV spots or in slow structures you should pass up +EV spots. I think there are spots where you should take -cEV spots if the blinds are about to go up if you'll lose your FE upon the blind increase. But these spots happen in all tournaments, regardless of structure; they just happen more often in fast structured ones. Passing +EV spots has been discussed many times, I think there are very few times it's correct. But regardless, your goal in every hand is still to maximize EV (where cEV is generally a very good approximation of $EV). How soon the blinds go up very rarely if ever impacts EV and thus structure of tournaments is irrelevant to proper strategies.

Steve

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

But isn't the main aspect of M your stack size relative to the pot, rather than the number of rounds till you are blinded out. I just don't see the point to the article.

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

[ QUOTE ]
But isn't the main aspect of M your stack size relative to the pot, rather than the number of rounds till you are blinded out. I just don't see the point to the article.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure M is computed by figuring the ratio of your stack size to the pre-flop blinds and antes. But Harrington specifically says the reason why this figure is important is that it indicates how long until you'll be blinded out (I think Snyder has the exact quote and page number in his article). As I read it this "how long have I got" aspect of M and therefore how aggressive do I need to play to remain competitive is one of two uses Harrington uses M for. The other use Harrington outlines is in deciding which hands are playable (ie, small pairs go down in value in the yellow/orange zone because you can't play them for set value).

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

[ QUOTE ]

(ie, small pairs go down in value in the yellow/orange zone because you can't play them for set value).


[/ QUOTE ]
allegedly! You can of course bring implied odds into this and say you can always call with a small pair assuming it is for only an eigth of your stack.
I suppose that's besides the point though.

If no alternative has been offered to calculating M or an efficient way of doing this at the table then it's effectively business as usual. Some people use M to tell them when to get aggressive, others just play aggressively anyway.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But isn't the main aspect of M your stack size relative to the pot, rather than the number of rounds till you are blinded out. I just don't see the point to the article.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure M is computed by figuring the ratio of your stack size to the pre-flop blinds and antes. But Harrington specifically says the reason why this figure is important is that it indicates how long until you'll be blinded out (I think Snyder has the exact quote and page number in his article). As I read it this "how long have I got" aspect of M and therefore how aggressive do I need to play to remain competitive is one of two uses Harrington uses M for. The other use Harrington outlines is in deciding which hands are playable (ie, small pairs go down in value in the yellow/orange zone because you can't play them for set value).

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that M overestimates how long you have before being blinded out, but I don't think that is the main point of M. Who folds all their hands short stacked anyway. Certainly that is not how Harrington advises you to play.

Snyder makes a point, but it is a really trivial irrelevant point. This guy shows very little understanding of strategy in his writings, but he makes it out like this is some great refutation of Harrington or Sklansky.

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

[ QUOTE ]
What are these adjustments that we make when the structure is worse?

[/ QUOTE ]

Imagine two tournaments. One with 5 minute blind levels and one with 30 minute blind levels. If you know that you are only going to get 1 hand per minute (let's be generous) obviously the 30 minute structure is better for a good player. No one will argue that.

So should we play differently in the 5 minute structure than in the 30 minute structure? I think the answer is, "For the most part no, but for some parts yes."

For example, if your M is 10, you should play more aggressively in the 5 minute structure because you know that you won't get as many opportunities before your stack is too short to do anything. Let's assume the blinds double at each level. In the 5 minute structure you get to see 5 hands per level. That means if you fold all 5 this level, your M is now 5 (even if you didn't pay the blinds, if you did it is 3.5). And in 5 more hands, your M will be 2.5.

So, a tough situation might come up. Let's say you get dealt 77 UTG. What do you do? In the five minute structure, it is more likely that a push is correct because mathematically, it is less likely that you will get a better opportunity. In a 30 minute structure with an M of 10, you can easily fold 77 UTG and not worry because you have 29 more hands at this level and 30 more at the next. Thus, the likelihood that you will find a more profitable situation is greater.

This example probably isn't mathematically perfect, but I think it demonstrates what Snyder is talking about. Which is that sometimes structure matters, because a more profitable situation may not be very likely to come up with limited time.

Now, his point is that given that structure matters, one should take advantage of profitable situations when they arise (no conflicts here). As opposed to my example above, he suggests that people use things like position and their chip stack to create profitable situations and to take advantage of them before it is too late. The details of which are covered in his book.

I own and have read his book. It is decent. I have tried employing his strategies. I didn't find them very useful. I found that they put me in situations where I wasn't comfortable playing and I often made mistakes. Which seems to go against his whole argument of finding profitable situations. Anyhow, I hope some of this post makes sense.

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

To me, OP's article just comes over as being a nit about reading Harrington's definition of M overly literally and assuming that poker players are just robots incapable of understanding anything deeper about it.

Like everyone here has said for a long time, M is just general guide, it's not the be-all-end-all of poker knowledge. M helps you quickly understand where you stand in relation to the blinds/antes.

I leaned moderately heavily on M when I was first learning to play well. Soon, I evolved to the point where the things that M told me became implicit, and now I mostly just think in terms of BB's because it's an easier way for me to figure where I am, and I can just automatically take into account the ante structure.

So to me, Snyder just comes off like one of those guys who sees a post on a message board where there are a handful of minor grammatical mistakes and refutes the other person's post on the basis of a few typos and misplaced commas. I didn't get anything out of reading, really. We all know that "True M" is a relative measure which is impacted by many things, and taking the time to calculate and understand "True M" is ridiculous. I'm willing to bet most of the better players on this forum tend to think inherently in terms of stack size in BB's as opposed to even thinking of stack size in terms of M, anyway.

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

There are some adjustments you need to make with a very fast structure. Harrington made an approximation that M was the number of rounds until you are blinded out. This is an accurate approximation for the tournaments which Harrington plays in, with 90+ minute rounds, but it is not accurate for low buyin live and online tournaments with very fast structures.

In some tournaments with very fast structures, you may need to gamble to maintain a stack large enough that you will have folding equity when the blinds increase. Most of the books assume major tournaments with slow structures, and do not discuss strategy for turbo tournaments.

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

[ QUOTE ]
So the only arguments in favour of structure mattering is that in fast structures you have to take -EV spots or in slow structures you should pass up +EV spots. I think there are spots where you should take -cEV spots if the blinds are about to go up if you'll lose your FE upon the blind increase.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still on the fence in regards to whether tournament structure means something. But I do know that, for example, if the blinds are about to change from 100/200 +25 to 200/400 +25 and I have 3000 in chips and I'm faced with a decision to re-steal I am more apt to push on the resteal knowing that I need chips to stay ahead of the next round.

Maybe this is incorrect thinking and it shouldn't matter because the +EV of the re-steal is there regardless. But if I'm on the fence, this might be the thing that tips the scale.

Again, this might be incorrect thinking. Thoughts?

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

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody does these things and I'm sure if you asked Harrington he'd agree as well. But whether those are profitable plays in a given hand is based on: a) your cards (which always have at least a minor importance) b) effective stacks c) your opponents tendencies d) respective images, players to act and their stacks/tendencies, flow of the game, etc. etc. but NOT how soon the blinds go up. (I'll come back to this)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this mean you're pushing hands earlier? Playing more hands? If so, why aren't you playing these hands in the slower structure? Are you purposely passing up +cEV plays in the slow structure to "wait for a better spot"? If so, why? I feel like what you're actually arguing is that Harrington plays too tight. Maybe that's true but how tight you should play is based so much on table dynamics that it's not really a fair criticism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Snyder is definitely saying that Harrington is too tight. I agree (and believe Snyder does too) with the things I quote above. His theories are largely based on playing against a large number of people playing the strategies that Harrington proposes. This apparently worked well for him in the low buy-in B&M tournaments he plays in Vegas. The opponents and table dynamics he found in these games allowed his techniques to work because he felt those playing a Harrington strategy could be pushed off a hand easier or more often. I've found that what works best for me is usually somewhere between Harrington and Snyder for the games I play depending on all the factors you list. For example the calling with any two on the button suggestion is something I rarely use. When I do it's not normally any two and is dependent on who else is in the pot.

[ QUOTE ]
But the fact that the blinds are going to go up in 5 minutes instead of 10 certainly doesn't change the cEV of a given play. So the only arguments in favour of structure mattering is that in fast structures you have to take -EV spots or in slow structures you should pass up +EV spots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll throw out one potential example. Let's say blinds are 200/400 and your stack is 7200 (18BBs or an M of 12). Assume you're in utg+1 and utg folds. You have 77.

If I interpret Harrington correctly he would advise mucking here. In the section on yellow zone play he discusses playing 44 from utg+1 and concludes that you can't play it in this situation. Although 77 is slightly stronger I believe the logic he outlines would still apply.

On the other hand Snyder's advice in this situation would be to go all-in. He says, "when you're this short on chips you must take risks because the risk of tournament death is greater if you don't play than if you do." In other words with blinds rising rapidly the odds of you getting a better hand in a better situation to pick up a few chips may not come.

Obviously Harrington's approach is neutral cEV. I guess whether Snyder's is + or - cEV depends on how you view your opponents calling ranges and the probability of one of those yet to act having one of these hands. I see Shermn27 just made a post with what at first glance looks like about the same example so I won't attempt to do the math here.