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

[stevepa]

[ QUOTE ]
Steve,

I'm not saying you should pass a +EV spot and take a gamble in a -EV spot. That makes zero sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
Rather, I am saying that if you know you only have so many hands remaining, it may be better to take a slightly -EV spot now than an larger -EV spot later when it appears unlikely that no +EV spot will emerge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, and I acknowledged these spots may exist in an earlier post. But they exist in all tournaments, they just come up more often in fast ones.

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I don't really agree with a lot of what Snyder is saying. My first (second?) post in this thread makes it pretty clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I skimmed most of this thread so must have missed that. Just kind of picked you out because part of one of your posts agreed with him, sorry. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Anyways, I haven't read too much of Snyder but I disagree with virtually everything I've read.

Steve

[VK_Rick]

I think part of the problem in these discussions remains the fact that "M" does not have a single meaning, and people focus of different aspects of "M" to suit their purposes. The most obvious difference is whether we are talking about number of orbits remaining or whether we have the right implied odds to play a speculative hand. I posted a response on this concept in the books and publications forum a few months ago, but it seems to fit in here, so I'll try it again:

The way I'm starting to think about it, when we talk about M, we may not always be talking about what we think we are. In my mind, M (and the strategy decisions it impacts) can be broken down into two components:

(1) the portion of your stack the current blinds represent; and

(2) the number of orbits you can play before being blinded off.

On the one hand, when we focus on the first component, I agree with Mason that the speed of the tournament makes little if any difference. Your M is your M. Your implied odds on the hand in question are what they are wihtout regard for how fast the blinds are going up, the percentage of your stack that you must risk on speculative hands is static, etc.

On the other hand, I think the dynamic is different when analyzing the second component of M. If we want to know the number of orbits we can play before being blinded off, the calculation is more complicated than the "M" calculation we perform at the table. Is is a function of hands per hour, frequency with which the blinds go up, and the magnitude of the increases when they do go up. When viewed this way, "fast" tournaments have a very different "true M" than "slow" ones, even when the calculation we perform at the table yields the same result.

For example, suppose you have T2100 with blinds of t50/t100. On its face, your M is 14. But you do not have 14 orbits to play. If binds never increase, you have 14 orbits, but no structure provides that many hands without blinds increasing. Even playing 9-handed at 35 hands per hour, you can only make about 8 orbits in a long, two-hour blind level. So if you are at the start of such a level, you will get 8 orbits at those blinds and 3 orbits at t100/t200, meaning only 11 orbits before being blinded off. If rounds last only one hour, you will have more like 4 orbits at t50/t100, 4 orbits at t100/t200, and 1 orbit at t150/t300, for a total of 9. With 15 minute rounds, you may have only 5 orbits left (I'm too lazy to do the actual calculation; it may be even less).

Thus, when analyzing the second component of M, in the faster tournament, you actually have a lower M right from the beginning. Moreover, as the speed of a tournament increases, the difference between your "true M" (orbits you can play) and the calculated M you make at the table becomes greater.

This has to impact optimum play, and while I have read only Harrington's books, not Snyder's, I suspect this phenomenon concerning the second component of M may lie at the heart of some of the dispute.

[BigAlK]

Rick,

I saw your original post and thought you were raising a good point then. I agree that M is really two different things and in these discussions people tend to focus or just one at a time.

Sometimes the problem is disagreement on which of the uses should prevail in your decision making. A good example is how (or if) to play small to medium pocket pairs. The "speed shouldn't influence strategy" camp would say "you've only got 18 big blinds, they've got to hit the muck from EP because you don't have the odds to call a raise for set value." The other side would say "omg, blinds are going up next hand and again 5 hands after that - I'm as good as in the red zone already, I'm all in."

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But in HOH II, he clearly states that M tells you how many rounds of the table you will survive—period . . . His book tells us that he assumes an M of 20 simply means 20 rounds remaining—which we know is wrong for all real-world tournaments

[/ QUOTE ] These statements demonstrate that either you have reading comprehension issues or you feel it necessary to distort the teachings of others to make yours look better. Neither option gives me much reason to take you seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Jeff:

I don't think it could be said much better.

Best wishes,
mason

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
On the topic of "real" Ms, I've never really thought of M as being "how many rounds you have left". It's simply a measure of your stack vs the dead money in the pot

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Bonified:

That's exactly the way I understand it. That is M is a measure of how many chips you have relative to the stakes. And when you M is high, or put another way you have a lot of chips relative to the stakes, all your options are open, and when your M is low, you have to start moving in with a lot of hands.

Another way of saying this is that M gives you an indication of how you should play your starting hands. Notice in the article Snyder says exactly the opposite.

I think what's happening here is that someone is trying to make a name for himself by proving the recognized expert, in this case Dan Harrington, wrong. If Snyder can pull it off then he'll become a fairly big name in poker.

But to pull it off he needs to show that he really does understand this stuff, and by misrepresenting what is written in our books and then explaining what's wrong with his misrepresentations is not the way to go about it. It also looks like Snyder was stung by the recent Card Player articles by Steve Zolotow where Steve was critical of the flaws in Snyder's book in exactly the same way that both David and I have been.

By the way, just to set the record straight, I do know Steve Z well and think very highly of him. But it's probably been about two months since we have talked (and Snyder or his book was not part of our conversation).

Best wishes,
mason

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
this guy is ridiculous, obv so offended that his book is not being taken seriously. what a fragile ego


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi kniper:

What you state in the quote isn't accurate. On my 1 to 10 review scale (with 10 being the best) I gave Snyder's book an 8, and anything that I rate an 8 or higher I do recommend. However, in my opinion there are flaws in the book, the most notable being that Snyder analyzed the tournaments as if they were winner take all which of course they are not.

Best wishes,
mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi stud:

Just to follow up here, Steve Zolotow happens to have a degree in math. I can't remember the school but I'm sure it was a good one.

Dan Harrington was originally an attorney, but his writing partner, former world backgammon champion Bill Robertie, has a degree in math from Harvard. Plus some other people, including myself and David Sklansky went over all the material in the Harrington books before they were published. So that's a bunch of mathematicians/statisticians right there.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Sherm:

I only skimed your post but I don't think the question you are asking is quite right. A better, but perhaop not perfect, question would be:

Suppose you have an M of 10. How does your play differ if you are in a tournament that has 30 minute intervals but there is now only 5 minutes left in the interval versus a tournament with 5 minute intervals and you are right at the beginning of that 5 minute interval?

Best wishes,
Mason

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Sherm:

I only skimed your post but I don't think the question you are asking is quite right. A better, but perhaop not perfect, question would be:

Suppose you have an M of 10. How does your play differ if you are in a tournament that has 30 minute intervals but there is now only 5 minutes left in the interval versus a tournament with 5 minute intervals and you are right at the beginning of that 5 minute interval?

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Mason,

It shouldn't affect play of a specific hand. The only exception is that in the shorter blind interval scenario, it will more often be correct to make a slightly -EV play now than a largely -EV play later when no +EV play is likely to arrive. But as Steve has pointed out, these situations occur in all tournaments; just more often in fast ones.

[TEKEE]

lets say i play a live 10 person sng and each player starts with 1500 chips and blinds start @ 25-50, rounds are 15 minutes long. is this a total crapshoot or do i have time to play poker?