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

[glass_onion]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the main issue with M is the number of rounds before you get blinded out if you fold everything.

If you have an M of 3, you increase your stack by 1/3 if you open push and no one calls, and you are getting 4-3 pot odds if you get one caller not in the blinds.

I think the bigger issue than the blinds going up is the ante. Having an M of 6 with 9K chips and 500/1000 blinds is not the same as having an M of 6 with 9K chips and 250/500/75 blinds. You would make different types of open raioses and reraises in the two cases.

[/ QUOTE ]


You would? I guess I miss the point here, because I'm open pushing and calling pushes with identical ranges here, WITH M=6. Had you said m+10 or higher, I can see how smaller raises in the last ante situation would be preferable, especially had the table/opponent been playing passively. Am I missing something important here???

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
Which game does a good player have a better chance in? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

[/ 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.

Regarding effective M. I think your rant is getting to the same conclusion as effective M would lead you most of the time. I realize you get there for slightly different reasons. You, because your hand that might be marginal at a full table is more likely to be good short handed. Harrington because with a lower M you have to lower your starting requirements because you can't afford to wait for a better hand due to the impact of blinds and antes. But aren't both reasons valid?

Regardless I think your way of thinking about this is better. This is because if you are stacked deep enough to be in Harrington's green zone at a short handed table I believe this could lead you to maintain the same starting requirements as at a full table. (Possibly this isn't true if you adjust based on your position relative to the button, playing utg as if it were MP for example.) Your approach would loosen starting requirements due to short handedness, not stack size.

[glass_onion]

[ QUOTE ]




In other words, good players implicitly know that an M of 10 doesn't mean they have 10 rounds left to play before blinding out. Good players make "mental estimations" of how long they have left to play given their current situation (chip stack, blinds, time left in level, table dynamics, etc.).

M is a simple heuristic to their mental estimation. And it does accurately tell a player his/her ratio of chips to blinds. Good players use this heuristic to adjust their play. It is actually very likely, that good players use M to make some sort of mental calculation that computes their "True M" as Mr. Snyder calls it.

Sherman

[/ QUOTE ]


This is one of the best posts I've ever seen on this forum, and its so true. I didn't even remember reading about "hands until you get blinded out" because seriously, who thinks about that? My mental heruistic is 'how likely I will be to push a better hand, weighted against the risk that my stack will diminish and therefore my fold equity/reward if I win, weighted against different opponent tendencies (which affect fold equity).' M is just the crutch I use as logic to get me in the right aggressive frame of mind.

I poker, however, it is typically the most profitable to do the opposite of what the table is doing, and in that perspective author might be on to a good point, IN THEORY. I don't see, however, that open pushing most any two hands with Harringtons M=20 (his method, say 6ish) can be right. In most any online tournament you will spend basically the entire tournament near or under a Harrington m=20. Therefore, he's advocating a single table tournament like 'push botting' in say, the $20x180 or $10 stars rebuy. Yes, you occasionally get big stacked, but seriously how often are you above m=20 with say 20-30 players left? And push botting - or close to it - with Harrington M=20 is rediculous, since you are risking your stack to increase your chips 5%?

[Bonified]

I can see what Snyder is saying here and I mostly agree with him. But at the end of the day these books are really just guidelines for the less experienced players. Have a look at the MTT strategy posts on here, or watch some of the videos on PokerXFactor, and you can see how the best players split the stack sizes into a stealing stack ; a re-stealing stack (which isn't a stealing stack because it's right for others to re-steal v you) ; and a stack that's big enough to steal again because the re-steal by an opponent is no longer efficient. This kind of thinking is what the "next level" of tournament book should aspire to and hopefully this won't come out for a while.

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, and this determines whether an open-shove (with small M) is +EV or not (along with hand strength and position), as of this hand. If a shove is +EV, I'm shoving, whether the blinds are going up in 2 hours or 2 seconds (except in some edge case where I'm UTG and the blinds are about to double or something).

In addition, both books grossly underestimate the effect of position on short-stack shoving decisions, if they mention it at all. I do like Snyder's book but his shove recommendations are wrong in particular where he's advising to shove with various hands irrespective of how many people are still to act, because this is a big factor.

[Kyer]

[ QUOTE ]
tl;dr

[/ QUOTE ]

Summary: Harrington´s M is not a good concept because it does not include tournament structure, which is crucial.

The rest of the 10.000 words, Snyder is repeating over and over again how superior his concept of "number of BBs" is to Harrington´s M.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see, however, that open pushing most any two hands with Harringtons M=20 (his method, say 6ish) can be right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to nitpick, but if I'm understanding the section you're referencing then this isn't what he's saying. This is when your stack is 20 big blinds or less, not an M of 20 or less. At 20BBs M would be 14 or less (depending on whether there are antes). I'm not likely to open-push 20BBs with any two cards from LP either, but wanted to clarify that he isn't saying to push 30BBs+ which is what an M of 20 would imply.

[Micturition Man]

This is the classic 2+2 style of negative self-promotion though. Find a flaw, however trivial, in your rival's book. Then sink your teeth into it like a bulldog and never let go. Never.

[TFGoose]

I'm inclined to agree with Sherman on this nearly 100%. Harrington's M is a guideline, not an absolute rule. And like any guideline, it is subject to interpretation and modification based on the current situation. Part of using M to evaluate your current position in a tournament is being aware of the structure, and knowing that your M might change soon. Harrington himself notes on a few occasions that you might alter your decision process based on the fact that the blinds are going to go up soon. This, and the discussion of "effective M" are evidence that the concept of M is not an absolute, but is merely a starting point from which to derive your actual decision.

--TFGoose

P.S. Mr. Snyder - in the future I propose that you take a more academic approach to the bashing of your fellow poker colleagues. Even if you don't agree with Harrington, a large collection of the poker world does, and you should take that into account before taking such a bullish approach against his theories. To use the old adage, "you get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar." Maybe next time, go with "Clarifying M: An Alternative Method for Calculation and Usage".

[AKHobbes]

I enjoyed Snyder's analysis, but I think the consideration of time is overrated here. If you interpret Harrington's M= to number of rounds left and use it as a guide to "survival" then I think it is definitely being misused. Snyder knows this. But I agree that most good players have recognized that when your M<5 it's all about fold equity and stepping it up. If your M is <5 in a structure that's 10 minutes or 100 minutes, it doesn't matter... It's time to make a move. Great thread.

[kniper]

lol

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

and to be honest i think he missed the point of M. One way of thinking of it was how many orbits you can survive. But yeah, this only becomes relevant when u are very shortstacked.

i use M to determine how much FE I have and how much post flop play i have. i dont use it to guess how long i wait it out to make the money or whatever

he suggests using the BB as an indicator, but I prefer M because it gives me a better perspective on my situation considering antes that are in play

so yeah, that guy should get over himself.