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

[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw stevepa is right, I have very rarely made a decision because the blinds are going to go up soon. Ok it happens in very rare occasions, but most of the time it's meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just "the blinds are going to go up soon" ...

It's M versus M' versus M'' ... or if you don't like discrete derivatives, just calculate M for this round, next round, and the round after. Either way, after you play enough tournaments paying attention to either of these sets of metrics, you will learn to enhance your play accordingly. And eventually I guarantee that you will come around to my way of thinking.

My philosophy of poker is modeled on my philosophy of financials trading: if a tool is available, I understand it, and it's premise appears to be valid, then I am going to try it out. You need every edge you can get, and you'll never know about edges that a given tool can provide unless you try out that tool.

You probably are using a more intuitive, non-rigorous, application of M, M', M'' in your play but not aware of it. Most players are. That's part of being a great player, knowing when to step it up a gear. By taking on indicated additional risk (adding variance) earlier than others, you gain a significant advantage.

I could write more about the theory behind why this works, but this shouldn't be an academic theoretical argument. I'm not trying to win an argument. You should open your mind and try out these tools. I am sure you are looking for ways to improve your game.

[/ QUOTE ]


are you responding to me?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you specifically, but also others, here and in the Books & Publications thread.

This "True M" controversy that Synder has manufactured is really unfortunate. The exact metric used as a tool is not what's really important. Monitoring (stack size) / (BB adjusted for antes) for this round and next 2 rounds would also be effective.

M,M',M'' is just one tool that the more mathematical-oriented players are using to gain an edge in today's inet tourneys. I think it's straightforward enough for anyone to incorporate into their game.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm currently working on an "estimated # of hands until busto" metric that dynamically calculates expected upcoming velocities (estimates current # of hands per minute based on hand histories, progressively adjusts this rate down for the bubble and late-game levels) and then applies these velocities to the tournament structure.

Metrics are the future of inet poker. It's only a matter of time before commercial software is available that dynamically calculates the above and other metrics and displays them within your FTP or PS window.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw stevepa is right, I have very rarely made a decision because the blinds are going to go up soon. Ok it happens in very rare occasions, but most of the time it's meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just "the blinds are going to go up soon" ...

It's M versus M' versus M'' ... or if you don't like discrete derivatives, just calculate M for this round, next round, and the round after. Either way, after you play enough tournaments paying attention to either of these sets of metrics, you will learn to enhance your play accordingly. And eventually I guarantee that you will come around to my way of thinking.

My philosophy of poker is modeled on my philosophy of financials trading: if a tool is available, I understand it, and it's premise appears to be valid, then I am going to try it out. You need every edge you can get, and you'll never know about edges that a given tool can provide unless you try out that tool.

You probably are using a more intuitive, non-rigorous, application of M, M', M'' in your play but not aware of it. Most players are. That's part of being a great player, knowing when to step it up a gear. By taking on indicated additional risk (adding variance) earlier than others, you gain a significant advantage.

I could write more about the theory behind why this works, but this shouldn't be an academic theoretical argument. I'm not trying to win an argument. You should open your mind and try out these tools. I am sure you are looking for ways to improve your game.

[/ QUOTE ]


are you responding to me?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you specifically, but also others, here and in the Books & Publications thread.

This "True M" controversy that Synder has manufactured is really unfortunate. The exact metric used as a tool is not what's really important. Monitoring (stack size) / (BB adjusted for antes) for this round and next 2 rounds would also be effective.

M,M',M'' is just one tool that the more mathematical-oriented players are using to gain an edge in today's inet tourneys. I think it's straightforward enough for anyone to incorporate into their game.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm currently working on an "estimated # of hands until busto" metric that dynamically calculates expected upcoming velocities (estimates current # of hands per minute based on hand histories, progressively adjusts this rate down for the bubble and late-game levels) and then applies these velocities to the tournament structure.

Metrics are the future of inet poker. It's only a matter of time before commercial software is available that dynamically calculates the above and other metrics and displays them within your FTP or PS window.

[/ QUOTE ]


So you are saying that me and stevepa need to work on our velocities? Honestly you might be the one that needs to open your mind and stop worrying about arcane mathematical theories that have almost no relevance during practical play. I'm sometimes guilty of that, but you seem to have taken it to a whole new level.

[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]
So you are saying that me and stevepa need to work on our velocities? Honestly you might be the one that needs to open your mind and stop worrying about arcane mathematical theories that have almost no relevance during practical play. I'm sometimes guilty of that, but you seem to have taken it to a whole new level.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not arcane at all. It's one of the most obvious and useful applications of math to tournaments I've ever come across. I've gotten into lots of arcane stuff, and discarded most of it as non-practical. M,M',M'' are not arcane, are practical to monitor during tourneys, and will add an edge to your play once you get good with them.

As I said, it's not difficult to give a try to the most basic metric: namely, monitor M for this round and the next 2 rounds. You can just open Notepad and Calculator and figure them out each time the blinds go up. You can eyeball what kind of changes in M are going to happen, and over time you'll get a feel for it.

I actually use averages of the discrete derivatives calc'd for the next 4 levels, but that's just fine-tuning.

I know a few math oriented inet tourney expert players who track M,M',M''. It takes some time to learn to apply properly, but we all agree presently it gives us a nice edge. You start seeing upcoming inflection points in your tournament life -- it's like an advance warning system.

What's interesting is that Snyder did notice a little-known little-understood area of potential, but looks to have gotten badly sidetracked in his zeal for gunning down other noted gambling authors.

The "estimated # hands until busto" metric I'm working on is a better version of his "True M", but I doubt it will be anywhere near as useful as M,M',M'' (or just monitoring what M will be for the next few levels for your current stack).

As I said before, metrics are the future of inet poker. Why not get ahead of the learning curve ?

I never would have posted any of this without seeing Synder's misinterpretations and misapplications of these concepts falsely presented as a revolution in poker theory.

[Sherman]

Is this thread still alive?

I'm pretty sure Stevepa, Betgo, Jeff76, and myself (if I do say so myself) ended this like months ago. WTF?

[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this thread still alive?

I'm pretty sure Stevepa, Betgo, Jeff76, and myself (if I do say so myself) ended this like months ago. WTF?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I should have started a new thread.

Synder apparently wants to misinterpret M because it serves his business interests.

But metrics to guage tournament structure/speed and how to apply them are a fascinating and rewarding topic and should not be overlooked or dismissed simply because of Snyder's unfortunate approach to the topic.

[sledghammer]

NERD ALERT!