|
|
#12
09-04-2007, 04:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: BB\'s vs. Harrington\'s M in STT SnGs (Long)
[ QUOTE ]
Justifiable Caution regarding M: If you use M in conjunction with the "Zone System" as described by Harrington in Harrington on Hold'Em, Volume II to make end game decisions in STT SnG's you will find yourself making lots of $EV mistakes. The reason for this is not strictly a problem with M but the fact that Harrington has his M figure calibrated for the typical MTT payout structure which usually heavily rewards finishing in the top 2 or 3 percent of the field. This results in hyper aggressive recommendations, especially at full or near full tables, as compared to the "correct" move in a similar situation with the flat STT payout structure. To successfully use M in STTs you must ignore many of Harrington's recommendations and recalibrate your M figures. [/ QUOTE ] This is the key point I think. M comes from MTT strategy and is very strongly associated with the push/fold tables based on it. ICM calcs work the same regardless, obv, being based on stack sizes - but pushing standards in an MTT will be far less dependent on other chip stacks, so they do lend themselves to tables instead of situation-specific calcs. This isn't true for STTs and there's no harm in avoiding the use of terms that implies that it is. The other problem is that, in the example you give, M is actually 3.3, not 6.6. You don't normally need to adjust it for short-handed play in an MTT until the final few tables. If you don't bother to adjust it for the number of players, then it's obviously much more similar to BBs as a measure of stack size. The thinking behind 10BBs as a guideline for using push/fold strategy is to do with having enough chips to play through a hand postflop; a rule of thumb being if that if raising costs more than 30% of your stack, push instead. This approach naturally incorporates antes, as it will lead to a higher threshold for pushing. It also automatically covers situations where you have limpers or a raise beforehand, where pushing a helluva lot more than 10BB may be most appropriate. I'd say it's most important to understand why these apparently arbitrary thresholds exist, rather than worrying about what they're called or how they're calculated. Routinely referring to M in an STT discussion is probably unhelpful because there are all sorts of things written elsewhere using it which just don't apply in STTs, and this is exactly the sort of adjustment that people seem to have most trouble with when switching to STTs. 
|
|
#13
09-04-2007, 09:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: BB\'s vs. Harrington\'s M in STT SnGs (Long)
[ QUOTE ]
The other problem is that, in the example you give, M is actually 3.3, not 6.6. [/ QUOTE ] I used M in my example rather than effective M in order to simplify the discussion. I could have just as easily said “effective M is 3.3 yada yada yada” but your point is taken. [ QUOTE ] Routinely referring to M in an STT discussion is probably unhelpful because there are all sorts of things written elsewhere using it which just don't apply in STTs, and this is exactly the sort of adjustment that people seem to have most trouble with when switching to STTs. [/ QUOTE ] Before M we all used BB’s in MTTs we just “recalibrated” when playing STTs. There is no reason M couldn’t be adjusted like this although I prefer and continue to use the BB measure myself. My point wasn’t to argue for using M when discussing STTs but to correct the erroneous posts that seem to suggest M and ICM are somehow competing tools.
|
|
#15
09-04-2007, 06:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: BB\'s vs. Harrington\'s M in STT SnGs (Long)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The other problem is that, in the example you give, M is actually 3.3, not 6.6. [/ QUOTE ] I used M in my example rather than effective M in order to simplify the discussion. I could have just as easily said “effective M is 3.3 yada yada yada” but your point is taken. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah - sorry, I just meant to say that folk need to make sure they use M and not effective M in an STT or the threshold for push/fold depends on the number of players left and could get kinda confusing. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Routinely referring to M in an STT discussion is probably unhelpful because there are all sorts of things written elsewhere using it which just don't apply in STTs, and this is exactly the sort of adjustment that people seem to have most trouble with when switching to STTs. [/ QUOTE ] Before M we all used BB’s in MTTs we just “recalibrated” when playing STTs. There is no reason M couldn’t be adjusted like this although I prefer and continue to use the BB measure myself. My point wasn’t to argue for using M when discussing STTs but to correct the erroneous posts that seem to suggest M and ICM are somehow competing tools. [/ QUOTE ] Sure. I guess I'm arguing for a "will making a reasonable size raise here make the pot more than a third of my stack?" as being the right threshold, with ~10BB being the resulting threshold for an open push.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
