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

[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw stevepa is right, I have very rarely made a decision because the blinds are going to go up soon. Ok it happens in very rare occasions, but most of the time it's meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just "the blinds are going to go up soon" ...

It's M versus M' versus M'' ... or if you don't like discrete derivatives, just calculate M for this round, next round, and the round after. Either way, after you play enough tournaments paying attention to either of these sets of metrics, you will learn to enhance your play accordingly. And eventually I guarantee that you will come around to my way of thinking.

My philosophy of poker is modeled on my philosophy of financials trading: if a tool is available, I understand it, and it's premise appears to be valid, then I am going to try it out. You need every edge you can get, and you'll never know about edges that a given tool can provide unless you try out that tool.

You probably are using a more intuitive, non-rigorous, application of M, M', M'' in your play but not aware of it. Most players are. That's part of being a great player, knowing when to step it up a gear. By taking on indicated additional risk (adding variance) earlier than others, you gain a significant advantage.

I could write more about the theory behind why this works, but this shouldn't be an academic theoretical argument. I'm not trying to win an argument. You should open your mind and try out these tools. I am sure you are looking for ways to improve your game.

[/ QUOTE ]


are you responding to me?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you specifically, but also others, here and in the Books & Publications thread.

This "True M" controversy that Synder has manufactured is really unfortunate. The exact metric used as a tool is not what's really important. Monitoring (stack size) / (BB adjusted for antes) for this round and next 2 rounds would also be effective.

M,M',M'' is just one tool that the more mathematical-oriented players are using to gain an edge in today's inet tourneys. I think it's straightforward enough for anyone to incorporate into their game.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm currently working on an "estimated # of hands until busto" metric that dynamically calculates expected upcoming velocities (estimates current # of hands per minute based on hand histories, progressively adjusts this rate down for the bubble and late-game levels) and then applies these velocities to the tournament structure.

Metrics are the future of inet poker. It's only a matter of time before commercial software is available that dynamically calculates the above and other metrics and displays them within your FTP or PS window.