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.
|