Why M is Overrated

[ZBTHorton]

[ QUOTE ]


BTW: I expected to get flamed. My overall point, is that folding equity should be your main consideration and this can be better gauged by # of Big Blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Easier, yes.

Better, no.

Do you not see why?

[locutus2002]

You can't have a complete analysis without considering the structure, your place, table conditions etc.

M is just a number, difficult to calculate for those of us not so mathematically (or lazy) inclined.

The number would have no meaning if it weren't for the zones described in HOH: particularly the M<10 zone.

I think his consideration of M and zones is biased towards major live tournaments which are very different from typical online play.

At M=9 on the WSOP you have T18,900 at 400/800/100; avg stack is ~60,000
At M=9 on Stars you have T14,850 at 400/800/50; avg stack is ~25,000.

The avg stack numbers are estimates but the point is that that when your M is low you are much further behind the avg stack on the WSOP. The structure is much faster on the WSOP due to fewer hands per 5 minutes (sometimes 1), and the large antes. In summary, I don't think red zone theory applies to online poker. Other than that, M sounds cool, and Magriel got to leave a legacy to poker.
For players considering where the desperation line is, I think BB=10 (or less) is much more appropriate than M=10 - for online play.

[Small Stakes]

I assume your reasoning is that M factors in antes.

Pot odds is only an accurate measure if the Big Blind is strictly using this as a measure. I would argue a large number of players do not. The amount of the raise is very signficant if it will cut into the BB's future folding equity.

[LearnedfromTV]

Both sides are a little bit right and a little bit wrong. The difference between using M vs x BB's is the ante, as others have said. An ante changes the dynamic such that the odds the BB sees for different M's is different than if there were no ante.

Some numbers:

200/400/50 level. 8 @ table, to make the math easy. 1000 in pot. If you have 3000, your M is 3. You push, it folds to the BB. He has to call 2600 more to win 4000, or 1.53 to 1.

200/400 level, no ante. Still 8 players. If you have 1800, your M is 3. You push, it folds to the BB. He has to call 1400 to win 2400, or 1.71 to 1.

200/400/100 level, still 8 players. If you have 4200, your M is 3. You push, it folds to the BB. he has to call 3800 to win 5600, or 1.47 to 1.

Generally, the higher the ante, the worse the odds you give the BB on calling a push you make with a given M. Note that in each case you are getting the same odds on your push (1 to 3). The amount in the pot relative to your stack is the same each time, but because the BB has put less of that amount in with higher antes, his odds are worse.

Looking more closely at the BB's odds - they are both dependent on the size of the pot (which includes antes) and on the # of BB's you have (which is independent of antes).

The general case: his odds are [(SB+BB+A)+(X)]X-BB), where X is the size of your push. When thinking about the amount he can win, it makes sense to relate X to the size of the pot, but when thinking about the amount he has to call, it makes sense to relate X to the size of the BB.

Having posted 1 BB, he has to call x-1 BB, where x is the number of BB you have. That is, the amount he has to call is a function of the # of BB's you have, not a function of your M. These two things are subtly different because of the ante.

In general, this makes it correct to push slightly more often with a given M the higher the antes are.

[Spee]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't have a complete analysis without considering .... your place ....

M is just a number

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeaaaaa, this part I like. Thank you.

Where do you sit relative to the short money? Where do you sit relative to chip leader? Where do you sit relative to the other stacks at your table? These are most important.

M doesn't mean doodly-squat late in the tournament if you are 2 or 3 doubles from the money and and another 2 or 3 doubles from the chip leader. You have to start moving some plastic, whether your M is two or ten.

M also doesn't mean doodly-squat if you and everyone at your table at that moment have the same M. If everyone has an M of 5 and you're the only one chunking, then good on ya. If everyone has an M of 8 and you're the only one not chunking, then you're probably in more trouble than you think.

But hey whatever, if one wants to play by the same book that everyone else has probably read, then be prepared to get regularly thumped by the people who know what you know, see what you do, and adjust accordingly.

[rockin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't have a complete analysis without considering .... your place ....

M is just a number

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeaaaaa, this part I like. Thank you.


[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, whats up with that?

I guess it goes something like this 1,2,3,4,5,M,7,8,9...


Spee, you are agreeing with OP?

As another poster pointed out, your M gives you a realistic indication of how many orbits you can last at the current blind level. When antes are involved, it affects that duration. Typically online, the total antes for each orbit will be approximately equal to 1/2 BB. If we are not considering this into our decision making, then we are not considering all of the factors that go into making every decision.

[bgoalie35]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't have a complete analysis without considering the structure, your place, table conditions etc.

M is just a number, difficult to calculate for those of us not so mathematically (or lazy) inclined.

The number would have no meaning if it weren't for the zones described in HOH: particularly the M<10 zone.

I think his consideration of M and zones is biased towards major live tournaments which are very different from typical online play.

At M=9 on the WSOP you have T18,900 at 400/800/100; avg stack is ~60,000
At M=9 on Stars you have T14,850 at 400/800/50; avg stack is ~25,000.

The avg stack numbers are estimates but the point is that that when your M is low you are much further behind the avg stack on the WSOP. The structure is much faster on the WSOP due to fewer hands per 5 minutes (sometimes 1), and the large antes. In summary, I don't think red zone theory applies to online poker. Other than that, M sounds cool, and Magriel got to leave a legacy to poker.
For players considering where the desperation line is, I think BB=10 (or less) is much more appropriate than M=10 - for online play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't want to pick the finer details too much, but the book actually advocates getting desperate at M <= 5, not 10. It does say its time to get more aggressive at 10, but it really advocates push-botting at 5.

Otherwise, I agree with others, you have to take the whole picture into account, and adjust accordingly.

[runout_mick]

[ QUOTE ]
M, BB, it's all just stupid math. Looking into someone's soul is what makes a player.

[/ QUOTE ]

You, me, and Phil, man.

You, me, and Phil...

[diesel13]

[/ QUOTE ]
But hey whatever, if one wants to play by the same book that everyone else has probably read, then be prepared to get regularly thumped by the people who know what you know, see what you do, and adjust accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This made the most sense of all!

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

If the blinds are 200-400 50 ante at a 10 person table and your stack is 1800. Your M is under 2, but you still have 4.5x time the blinds and some folding equity.

Depending on the size of the stacks behind you, your fold equity with 4.5 big blinds is minimal at best, approaching zero at worst. besides, with less than 12 big blinds, I'm in push/fold mode anyway.

I find the best application of M is in understanding when calling raises with middle pairs is warranted and when it isn't.

On the other hand, if you fail to incorporate antes into your preflop thinking, you will have a tendency to get too conservative when faced with a raise from a steal position and make bad value assessments of middle pairs.

Let's assume 15-18 big blinds in two stacks. Player 1 is on the button thinking in terms of BBs, player 2 is in the BB thinking in terms of M. If player 1 estimates his fold equity in terms of BB, he's overestimating it against the player thinking in terms of M.