No love for Harrington

[StrongArm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Harrington is a class act.

That chick is f hot and has a bodacious rack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dan didn't even shift his eyes once towards her rack.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats cuz hes a breast lookin specialist, his eyes are really lookin at her chest the whole time. Thats what makes him so good at poker, it looks like hes lookin at the board but hes really lookin at ur face.

I to, have this ability.

[wisehandpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just pre-recorded an interview with Daniel Negreanu about this for my radio show next week.


[/ QUOTE ]
What radio show? Where?


www.roundersradio.com

[/ QUOTE ]

Wednesday night, 8-10PM EST. Didn't want to spam the url, but you did the dirty work.

[suzzer99]

[ QUOTE ]
wow - that interviewer has big boobies

[/ QUOTE ]

I went to the Bike to play, and wound up watching most of the the HU with him and David Pham until we couldn't take it anymore. Soooooo boring. Not one recognizable face except the two participants anywhere near the final table. Interviewer chick was extra awesome in person though. mmmmmmmm Only other pro we saw in the whole building was Men the Master, who looked completely fried of course.

I understand now why the WPT FT blinds are so ludicrous. They must have had 30 or producer boys and other crew running around. Plus 3 or 4 random hotties like this chick whose job description was unclear. People kept leaving so they kept moving us around to keep the stands looking full for the cameras. Also I think they employ some people to sit in the stands and act like idiots to keep everyone from falling asleep. They kept spazzing out over like a J72 rainbow flop.

WPT has to be on its last legs.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]


WPT has to be on its last legs.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, that's just how they run the show. Pretty bad for players and audience alike.

[Paul Levy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not surprised. Most of the tournament hotshots ridicule his books and dismiss his play as "weak-tight". Just look at how obsolete, in the view of some, the whole concept of M has become.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're purposely saying the opposite of what's true, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Make no mistake - I'm a big fan of Harrington's and I personally believe his advice is as good as ever, but I've been feeling like I belong to a disappearing species.

I don't have any link to a specific thread but that's the theme that I've been picking up from the MTT strategy forums for a while. I'm actually surprised nobody else noticed this.

About the M concept: in most of the strategy posts I've been reading, the medium and short stack decisions are seldom based on an M number; rather, the "number of big blinds" count seems to be the only metric that matters, and the concept of stack-to-pot size seems largely forgotten.

[HaraK1ri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just pre-recorded an interview with Daniel Negreanu about this for my radio show next week.


[/ QUOTE ]
What radio show? Where?


www.roundersradio.com

[/ QUOTE ]

Wednesday night, 8-10PM EST. Didn't want to spam the url, but you did the dirty work.

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW:

"Poker is more then bluffing, folding, raising, calling and checking. "

it's actually THAN not then...
[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[nortonmalc]

[ QUOTE ]
its cuz everyone wanted the dragon to win

or was that just me?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure it was just you.

[cwsiggy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Harrington is a class act.

That chick is f hot and has a bodacious rack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dan didn't even shift his eyes once towards her rack.

[/ QUOTE ]

ah - but did you all catch Dan's nervous chuckle at the very last second of the vid- I think that's when he finally caught a glimpse of them.

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
About the M concept: in most of the strategy posts I've been reading, the medium and short stack decisions are seldom based on an M number; rather, the "number of big blinds" count seems to be the only metric that matters, and the concept of stack-to-pot size seems largely forgotten.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know where you read that, but it's hideously wrong. Stack-to-pot is what matters, regardless of what you call it. Measuring in terms of BB causes all kinds of problems - the most obvious is that you're not accounting for antes. But there are a lot of other situations. What if it's an unusual blind structure? What if there is no small blind? The proportion of he BB to the pot is different in a 2/5 game then a simple 1/2 game, for example.

Example A: 4th level of a B&M turbo table with 10 players, and it's level 4 at 200/400 with a 50 ante. You have 4000 chips, and exactly 10BB. Your M is about 3.64.

Example B: Same situation, no antes. You have 4000 chips, and still, exactly 10BB. Your M, however, is 6.67. - a lot different from the last example.

This is why BB-to-stack can't be used universally, but a stack to pot measurement can. It's also important when you're considering bet sizes, you can't just bet x BB, you will often have to adjust to structures that aren't nice and neat 1x/2x SB/BB that a lot of people are used to online.

[rocketsfan4lyfe]

hes the best, it doesnt matter if hes a nit, his wins speak for themselves