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

[burningyen]

My hunch is that often the merit of maniac low M (or fast structure) play is due to the necessity of making a -EV play when the alternative plays are all even more -EV. So in advocating that we push with 62o and 20BBs in the CO given a certain structure, Snyder should be required to show that we cannot expect to find a better spot with that structure. While I think the tone of all of the back-and-forth among the authors is comical, I do think Snyder has raised some interesting questions.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
I own and have read his book. It is decent. I have tried employing his strategies. I didn't find them very useful. I found that they put me in situations where I wasn't comfortable playing and I often made mistakes. Which seems to go against his whole argument of finding profitable situations. Anyhow, I hope some of this post makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said in the other post I don't play (and never have played) a strict Snyder game. What he outlines is designed for a very specific range of tournament speeds. As you play slower structures you have to adjust. The section on opening requirements, etc have been the part that has influenced my game the least. The value I got from the book was in other areas, primarily in getting a better understanding of the value of position and your stack size and how to use these to your advantage. Harrington discusses the various styles (tight, aggressive, super aggressive) and says you need to mix it up regardless of your default style. But he doesn't really give many ideas of how to do that, at least when deep stacked. (Short stacked "everyone is aggressive.") Snyder has pointed me in the right direction to successfully mix things up.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
My hunch is that often the merit of maniac low M (or fast structure) play is due to the necessity of making a -EV play when the alternative plays are all even more -EV. So in advocating that we push with 62o and 20BBs in the CO given a certain structure, Snyder should be required to show that we cannot expect to find a better spot with that structure. While I think the tone of all of the back-and-forth among the authors is comical, I do think Snyder has raised some interesting questions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where did Snyder advocate pushing 62o for 20xBB from CO? That is an awful play.

I think if your M is going down, that is a reason for playing tighter, because there will be more cEV+ oportunities with a smaller M.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
Where did Snyder advocate pushing 62o for 20xBB from CO? That is an awful play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that was hyperbole, but checked my copy of the book and he does advise pushing all in with what he defines as a "very short stack" of 11-20bbs if first in from LP. I'd certainly never do that. Now with 8bbs as first in from the SB, maybe.

[burningyen]

[ QUOTE ]
Where did Snyder advocate pushing 62o for 20xBB from CO? That is an awful play.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the article:

[ QUOTE ]
Let’s say the blinds are 100-200, and you have 4000 in chips. Harrington would have you thinking that your M is 13 (yellow zone), and he advises: “…you have to switch to smallball moves: get in, win the pot, but get out when you encounter resistance.” (HOH II, p. 136) In The Poker Tournament Formula basic strategy for fast tournaments (PTF p. 158), I categorize this chip stack equal to 20 big blinds as “very short,” and my advice is: “…you must face the fact that you are not all that far from the exit door. But you still have enough chips to scare any player who does not have a really big chip stack and/or a really strong hand. Two things are important when you are this short on chips. One is that unless you have an all-in raising hand as defined below, do not enter any pot unless you are the first in. And second, any bet when you are this short will always be all-in.” The fact is, you don't have enough chips for “smallball” when you’re this short on chips in a fast tournament, and one of the most profitable moves you can make is picking on Harrington-type players who think it's time for smallball.

Harrington sees this yellow zone player as still having 13 rounds of play (130 hands, which is a big overestimation resulting from his failure to adjust to True M) to look for a pretty decent hand to get involved with. My thinking in a fast tournament, by contrast, would be: “The blinds are now 100-200. By the time they get around to me fifteen minutes from now, they will be 200-400. If I don’t make a move before the blinds get around to me, and I have to go through those blinds, my 4000 will become 3400, and the chip position I’m in right now, which is having a stack equal to 20 times the big blind, will be reduced to a stack of only 8.5 times the big blind. Right now, my chip stack is scary. Ten to fifteen minutes from now (in 7-8 hands), any legitimate hand will call me down.”

So, my advice to players this short on chips in a fast tournament is to raise all-in with any two cards from any late position seat in an unopened pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where did Snyder advocate pushing 62o for 20xBB from CO? That is an awful play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that was hyperbole, but checked my copy of the book and he does advise pushing all in with what he defines as a "very short stack" of 11-20bbs if first in from LP. I'd certainly never do that. Now with 8bbs as first in from the SB, maybe.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is really idiotic. Even with a big ante, you can't push any two there. I don't think even Snyder means push 62o for 20xBB. I don't have Snyder's book and I am not impressed with the articles.

The main purpose for pushbotting is that it is often cEV+, not that you are desperate that you will be blinded out.

[stevepa]

shermn (and others who agree with snyder), you seem to be arguing exactly what I can't imagine good players would agree with. That we should pass up small edges in good structured tournaments and take "negative edges" in quick tournaments. I think in order to make those arguments, you need a lot more than just "do it because the blinds are going up soon/not soon".

DP, if the resteal is +EV, do it whether the blinds are going up in 5 minutes or 50 minutes.

Steve

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
shermn (and others who agree with snyder), you seem to be arguing exactly what I can't imagine good players would agree with. That we should pass up small edges in good structured tournaments and take "negative edges" in quick tournaments. I think in order to make those arguments, you need a lot more than just "do it because the blinds are going up soon/not soon".

DP, if the resteal is +EV, do it whether the blinds are going up in 5 minutes or 50 minutes.

Steve

[/ QUOTE ]
I will make decisions partly because I want to keep or obtain a certain sized stack to pushbot, resteal, push around the table, sneak up in the prize money, or whatever. I think these strategic considerations are important and often overlooked.

What I don't understand is that Snyder seems to think that if you have 12xBB and it is going down to 8xBB, then you have to gamble. 5-10xBB is a very good stack size to steal with. I can see that you might want to take chances to avoid going below 5xBB, but you can open push many hands profitably at that point.

Then Snyder ties this in with M and says you need to adjust the M for the blinds going up. I just don't get it.

[Sherman]

Steve,

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

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.

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.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where did Snyder advocate pushing 62o for 20xBB from CO? That is an awful play.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the article:

[ QUOTE ]
Let’s say the blinds are 100-200, and you have 4000 in chips. Harrington would have you thinking that your M is 13 (yellow zone), and he advises: “…you have to switch to smallball moves: get in, win the pot, but get out when you encounter resistance.” (HOH II, p. 136) In The Poker Tournament Formula basic strategy for fast tournaments (PTF p. 158), I categorize this chip stack equal to 20 big blinds as “very short,” and my advice is: “…you must face the fact that you are not all that far from the exit door. But you still have enough chips to scare any player who does not have a really big chip stack and/or a really strong hand. Two things are important when you are this short on chips. One is that unless you have an all-in raising hand as defined below, do not enter any pot unless you are the first in. And second, any bet when you are this short will always be all-in.” The fact is, you don't have enough chips for “smallball” when you’re this short on chips in a fast tournament, and one of the most profitable moves you can make is picking on Harrington-type players who think it's time for smallball.

Harrington sees this yellow zone player as still having 13 rounds of play (130 hands, which is a big overestimation resulting from his failure to adjust to True M) to look for a pretty decent hand to get involved with. My thinking in a fast tournament, by contrast, would be: “The blinds are now 100-200. By the time they get around to me fifteen minutes from now, they will be 200-400. If I don’t make a move before the blinds get around to me, and I have to go through those blinds, my 4000 will become 3400, and the chip position I’m in right now, which is having a stack equal to 20 times the big blind, will be reduced to a stack of only 8.5 times the big blind. Right now, my chip stack is scary. Ten to fifteen minutes from now (in 7-8 hands), any legitimate hand will call me down.”

So, my advice to players this short on chips in a fast tournament is to raise all-in with any two cards from any late position seat in an unopened pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
I kind of skimmed through the article and didn't find anything intelligent, so I didn't carefully go through this part at the end.

This is simply wrong. He is saying push any two from late position with 20xBB no ante.

Also, it is not correct that you can only open push with 20xBB. You can make a small raise and call or fold to a reraise, playing a flop if you get flat called. What is wrong with that? You also have a play of limping, with a possibility of a limpreraise. An open push from 20xBB from late position is playable with middle strength hands.

With 20xBB, if someone raises and you want to play, then reraising allin is often better than flat calling or making a smaller reraise.

With the reraise, the push is not an overbet. Similarly, it is OK to push at limpers for 20xBB. However, open pushing for 13xpot is not always the best raise size, and you need the right hand and situation for this not to be cEV-.

Also, as I said before, 8xBB is a very good size stack for pushbotting. Any legitimate hand can't call unless it is in the BB, because your opponents have to be worried about other players yet to act and they may have to commit a lot more than 8xBB to call.

Granted, if you open push for 20xBB M of 13, you don't get called very often. But that is like swatting flies with a sledgehammer. It is not a bad play with like 55 or KQ in CO, but pushing any two or using this play a lot is definately a donk play.