M Ratios

[afadeyi]

for clarification, i realize there is the q ratio, and the weighted average M that I've described would kind of be a mix of Q and M in my mind. this could then be used to create some type of modified M for each player, which is based on stack size relative to weigted average M.

Not sure what new insights this might offer...

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
for clarification, i realize there is the q ratio, and the weighted average M that I've described would kind of be a mix of Q and M in my mind. this could then be used to create some type of modified M for each player, which is based on stack size relative to weigted average M.

Not sure what new insights this might offer...

[/ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think you are overanalyzing this.

Your fist task is to use M to adjust your strategy. To me, this is the baseline starting point. From there, I re-adjust depending on the M of my opponents. Then I further readjust depending on my Q.

For example, for any given M I have, I get a little more desparate as my Q falls below 1. If my Q is very high, then for my given M, I get less desparate. Further, in the early to mid stages my Q is less important while in the end game, Q becomes much more important.

I think that factoring in Q as the tourney moves on inherently takes into account what other players situations are as well.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree that there is no advantage to knowing the average M. If you are down to 2 or 3 tables in a tounament, knowing the average M would be a good indicator of what the pace of the tournament will be and may mean a significant difference in the payout, especially if you're already in the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

How? I mean, you can see at a glance how fast the tournament's going to be for you by looking around your table. And how on earth does the average M affect your payout?

[drzen]

pantsonfire, I think that in a standard online tourney, you are more likely to adjust your strategy according to the stacks at your table, which will be reasonably indicative of the average anyway. If you're short, you'll play differently from how you would if you're chip leader. This is much more a consideration than what your Q is.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
pantsonfire, I think that in a standard online tourney, you are more likely to adjust your strategy according to the stacks at your table, which will be reasonably indicative of the average anyway. If you're short, you'll play differently from how you would if you're chip leader. This is much more a consideration than what your Q is.

[/ QUOTE ]
I should have mentioned that my M and the M of the table is the first consideration. As far as Q, there are times where there are lots of short stacks so the table Q is low and some times there are chip leaders there too.

I do start to think of Q as the tourney progresses. For example, when there are 100 left and 50 make the money, you can firgure out what the average will be at that point. Or when you are in the money, you can calculate what the average stack will be at the final table. Personally, if I am getting behind those averages, I become a little more desparate and aggressive than I would for whatever M I am at.

Likewise, even if my M is low, I might not be as desparate if I am near the chip lead. If I get to the final table with a low M but an above average stack, I am generally very happy. I think that's what the OP was asking.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
And how on earth does the average M affect your payout?

[/ QUOTE ]
Here is a scenario. You are in the money at the final table. The payout is steep. So as usual, the top four places are a lot better than 8th or 9th. No mystery there. Your M is 7.

If the average M is 30, you are in trouble and need to move fast. If the average M is 2, you can relax a little and let others knock each other out. I would play those two situations very differently.

So really, average M has a relation to Q, as I have been stating in my posts. Here is my chart:

High M, high Q - yeah baby.
Low M, high Q - relax and watch others fall.
High M low Q - no so bad, don't do anything stupid, play poker.
Low M low Q - shove and pray.

Does this address your question adequately?

[JocK]

[ QUOTE ]
no, im talking about calculating Ms for everyone and then determining the weighted average M. i.e. one player has 1,000,000 in chips and 9 player have $100,000. The weighted average M here would be ~114.7368 (assuming blinds and antes =5,000), but this is different from a table that has 10 player each with 190,000 in chips. The weighted average M in this case is roughly 38.

thoughts on how this affects strategy??

[/ QUOTE ]

If I understand you correctly, your 'weighted average M' is the average of the squared M's divided by the average M:

Average M-square: <M2> = (1 * 200 * 200 + 9 * 20 * 20)/10 = 4360

Average M: <M> = (1 * 200 + 9 * 20)/10 = 38

<M2>/<M> = 4360/38 = 114.7368

I think what you want to achieve is better done by taking the harmonic average of all the M's:

1/<M-> = (1 * 1/200 + 9 * 1/20)/10 = 0.0455 (= average fraction of stack lost per round)

or: <M-> = 1/0.0455 = 21.978

This harmonically averaged M describes in which M-zone the table is playing, and therefore is a measure for the 'action' at the table (for lower <M->, you should expect more action from the table).

But.... would like to echo a remark made above: don't over-analyse... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And how on earth does the average M affect your payout?

[/ QUOTE ]
Here is a scenario. You are in the money at the final table. The payout is steep. So as usual, the top four places are a lot better than 8th or 9th. No mystery there. Your M is 7.

If the average M is 30, you are in trouble

[/ QUOTE ]

This is to do with the stacks at your table though, as I mentioned. It's not what the Q is that counts, but that you are short compared with the other players *at your table*.

[ QUOTE ]
and need to move fast. If the average M is 2, you can relax a little and let others knock each other out. I would play those two situations very differently.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't affect the payout though.

[ QUOTE ]
So really, average M has a relation to Q, as I have been stating in my posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Average M is Q, dude.



[ QUOTE ]
Here is my chart:

High M, high Q - yeah baby.
Low M, high Q - relax and watch others fall.
High M low Q - no so bad, don't do anything stupid, play poker.
Low M low Q - shove and pray.

Does this address your question adequately?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. I completely agree, of course, but at the final table it's more to do with your relative stack. Yeah, it amounts to the same, but I think that the consideration is your relative stack at all stages.

And it doesn't actually affect your payout, only how you try to increase it!