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

[Jeff76]

[ 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.

[b-komplex]

I will agree with OP that using Harrington's zone strategy from HOH2 is going to result in suboptimally tight play in the super turbo structures like the daily tournaments found in a lot of casinos.

Also I think structure is something people maybe don't consider enough. It's really rarely mentioned in any of the hand evaluations. I play mostly 15 min levels on Stars but I know I am more inclined to take a big risk say at the 100/200/25 level knowing the next level is going to change the complexion of the tournament drastically.

[MaLiik]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. I didn't say I agreed with Mason, I don't. I was just pointing out that he has taken extreme issue in the past with tournament speed having any bearing on anything.

[/ QUOTE ]Why would the blindspeed have any bearing on the subject? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[pokerstudAA]

Coming to post at 2+2 to promote your book and spouting this crap: [ QUOTE ]
”Zolotow’s “CPR” articles were simply a couple of columns he wrote last year in which he did nothing but explain Harrington’s M theory, as if it were 100% correct. He added nothing to the theory of M, and is clearly as ignorant of the math as Harrington is."

[/ QUOTE ]

Arnie - you come off as a wanna-be intellectual douche who makes himself feel better by putting down others. Harrington's ideas are well respected and I highly doubt he is ignorant of the math involved.

As someone else said:
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe next time, go with "Clarifying M: An Alternative Method for Calculation and Usage".

[/ QUOTE ]

[betgo]

[ 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 ]
I read this guy's articles on why Sklansky was wrong to say you shouldn't take even gambles for your whole stack in tournaments. Some of what Sklansky said isn't always true, but Snyder acted like he had refuted Sklansky.

As far as M is concerned, the issue of how many rounds till you blind out is not the most important thing.

It seems like he is making really trivial points and acting like he has discovered something earthshaking.

[pacecar86]

nothing new here

[namespace]

I wonder who has made more money at tournament poker?

Anyways, I read this book and liked it-
it put into words exactly what I thought was true.

Regarding the M factor -- it's more accurate than #BB's in tournaments-noduh.

[stevepa]

Can someone who is either the OP or agrees with the OP answer this for me (I admit I haven't read the article because it's really really long): What are these adjustments that we make when the structure is worse? Is the OP really suggesting that we make -cEV plays if the blinds are going to go up soon? Because otherwise, he's not really disagreeing with Harrington at all (as I recall, Harrington suggests taking any and all +cEV edges, except in unusual circumstances)

Steve

P.S. I strongly disagree with the idea that tournament structure has a substantial impact on strategy in all but the most extreme cases.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone who is either the OP or agrees with the OP answer this for me

[/ QUOTE ]

Steve,

I hesitate to try because you are, if not smarter than me, definitely a better poker player. I don't always agree 100% with OP, although I do on most things. He may also stop by and tell you my explanation is wrong. Now that I've got the disclaimers out of the way I'll give it a shot. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

What is a +cEV play? Anything that on average will win more chips than we lose, right? OP doesn't suggest we make -cEV plays since, by definition, continually doing that guarantees you'll lose. What he suggests is that you look for your +cEV plays that aren't always based purely on your cards. Is a blind steal +cEV? How about calling a pre-flop raise (with positon) from a player you've identified as weak tight with the intention of taking away the pot on the turn if he shows any weakness? I'm sure you've done both of these at some point.

If Harrington really believes you should always take all +cEV edges then why would he suggest when you get short stacked that you have to loosen up your starting requirements. Does the hand that isn't good enough with a bigger stack suddenly become profitable due to you having less chips?

We make adjustments due to a quicker structure because we are (or should consider ourself to be) desperate quicker than using Harrington's zone system would indicate.

[ QUOTE ]
P.S. I strongly disagree with the idea that tournament structure has a substantial impact on strategy in all but the most extreme cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly I don't see how anyone can believe this. Possibly if you read Snyder's book instead of basing your opinion on a quick browse in the bookstore you'd feel differently. Then again, maybe not.

Al

[Sherman]

Steve,

If I read it correctly, the OP's post had little to do with cEV at all and making +cEV moves. It had everything to do with demonstrating that M doesn't take into account the fact that the blinds may change.

Basically, if you are at the table and you have and M of 10, you don't necessarily have 10 rounds left before you are blinded out (especially online) because the blinds will have gone up at least once (maybe two or three times) in those 10 rounds that you had left, which effectively changes your M each time.

Thus, if one wanted to calculate his or her "true M" you would need to estimate how many rounds (or hands) you would have to play at each blind level and how many times you would have to play the blinds/antes at each level. The math, while not complicated logically, is a bit cumbersome to do especially at the poker table.

While this "true M" is a more accurate prediction of when you will blind out, Snyder suggests that you shouldn't compute it and should just ignore it completely. Rather than following M or "true M" one should follow the strategies outlined in his book (which I know you have discussed some of before).

Many people took his article as Sklansky/Malmuth/Harrington bashing, but I really didn't. Anyhow, I've got to go, so I might summarize some more later.

Sherman