"M" Theory

[bonsaltron]

Harrington defines "M" as the amount of chips it costs to play an orbit of the table given the blinds and ante of a level. For example, 100-200 blinds with 25 ante at a full table is

100 + 200 + 25(10) = 550

550 / Given Stack Size = M


However, Harrington says as the table shrinks, you must multiply the M equation by the amount of table capacity. EG.:

6 players of the same level

100 + 200 + 6(25) = 450

(450 / Given Stack Size) x 0.6 = M

This rule applies all the way until heads up.

Can someone explain to me the rationale for this? How does the M concept change as the blinds go around faster and faster? It's still preportionate to everyone. I don't get it.

-Gpro

[FortunaMaximus]

You're paying the blinds more often at a 6-handed table, so it's necessary to gauge your M as lower than it actually is. You're seeing less hands for your stack size relative to the blinds you have to pay.

Added to that, you should be widening your range as a table gets shorthanded as a matter of course anyway. As for how it relates to other players at the table, their M shrinks too using the same formula.

[Sherman]

Oh I am soo soo glad you asked.

What you are referring to is what Harrington calls "effective M."

In an earlier post, I argued that effective M is nonsense. Here is why:

Harrington argues that because the blinds are coming faster your M shrinks and therefore you have to play more hands. While this is absolutely 100% true, the logic is faulty. The reason you play more hands is NOT because your M shrinks. The reason you should play more hands is because at a shorter table you have MORE EQUITY in the pot BEFORE THE CARDS ARE DEALT!

Think of it this way. If your true M was 20, but your effective M was 15, Harrington says you should play more hands. He is right. You should play more hands. And, it looks as if the change of true M to effective M is dictating that.

However, imagine another scenario where your true M is 120 and your effective M (because it is a 6 max tournament) is 100. Should you play more hands? If you follow Harrington's zone theory, the answer is no. You should not play more hands. But, doing so neglects the fact that you have MORE EQUITY in the pot to start the hand.

So most of the time effective M does allow you to play appropriately, but rather than focus on effective M, one should focus on his or her equity in the pot, the size of the pot, and his or her stack size. These should dictate the speed of play. Not M alone.

[coatsie]

if you're using "effective M" i think you should use your "M" aswell. I think your "M" should determine your raise size and aggresivness while your "effective M" should determine the hands you play. E.g.

6 handed
blinds - 100/200
Stack = 2100
M = 7
EM = 4.2

do those already using "effective M" push when they enter the pot? I think this is wrong as you're risking too much.

i think your M should be adjusted by the round length tho.

[JFJB]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh I am soo soo glad you asked.

What you are referring to is what Harrington calls "effective M."

In an earlier post, I argued that effective M is nonsense. Here is why:

Harrington argues that because the blinds are coming faster your M shrinks and therefore you have to play more hands. While this is absolutely 100% true, the logic is faulty. The reason you play more hands is NOT because your M shrinks. The reason you should play more hands is because at a shorter table you have MORE EQUITY in the pot BEFORE THE CARDS ARE DEALT!

Think of it this way. If your true M was 20, but your effective M was 15, Harrington says you should play more hands. He is right. You should play more hands. And, it looks as if the change of true M to effective M is dictating that.

However, imagine another scenario where your true M is 120 and your effective M (because it is a 6 max tournament) is 100. Should you play more hands? If you follow Harrington's zone theory, the answer is no. You should not play more hands. But, doing so neglects the fact that you have MORE EQUITY in the pot to start the hand.

So most of the time effective M does allow you to play appropriately, but rather than focus on effective M, one should focus on his or her equity in the pot, the size of the pot, and his or her stack size. These should dictate the speed of play. Not M alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sherman,

I think this is an excellent reply. However, I do not think it is for just anyone to grasp what you are saying in there.

I may had that you also have to adjust your M with the average M in the tournament. At the end game everyone is usually short and a player with an M of 6 may actually be above average. Even if you let the blinds go by you and take you down to an M of 5 doubling up from an M of 5 to 10 will put you in good position to reach the final table. There is so much more in the short handed end game then just your M and effective M to consider if one just goes by that he will donk all of his Tchips away like I see soo often.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone explain to me the rationale for this? How does the M concept change as the blinds go around faster and faster? It's still preportionate to everyone. I don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]
M is calculated for a full 10 player table. Therefore, you get 10 hands per orbit. At a shorter table, you get less than 10 hands per orbit so you are getting lower chances of getting a good hand per orbit so you desparation factor is higher (i.e. M is lower).

Having said all that, have a look see at this: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...egy_True_M.htm

[sbj]

[ QUOTE ]
However, imagine another scenario where your true M is 120 and your effective M (because it is a 6 max tournament) is 100. Should you play more hands? If you follow Harrington's zone theory, the answer is no. You should not play more hands. But, doing so neglects the fact that you have MORE EQUITY in the pot to start the hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

When you say MORE EQUITY in the pot, do you mean relative to a 10-person table?

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, imagine another scenario where your true M is 120 and your effective M (because it is a 6 max tournament) is 100. Should you play more hands? If you follow Harrington's zone theory, the answer is no. You should not play more hands. But, doing so neglects the fact that you have MORE EQUITY in the pot to start the hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

When you say MORE EQUITY in the pot, do you mean relative to a 10-person table?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Or 9.

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can someone explain to me the rationale for this? How does the M concept change as the blinds go around faster and faster? It's still preportionate to everyone. I don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]
M is calculated for a full 10 player table. Therefore, you get 10 hands per orbit. At a shorter table, you get less than 10 hands per orbit so you are getting lower chances of getting a good hand per orbit so you desparation factor is higher (i.e. M is lower).

Having said all that, have a look see at this: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...egy_True_M.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW, a 2+2 discussion of this article is linked here

[BlueEcho]

JFJB,

I don't believe Sherman was talking as if M or effective M was the be all end all in end game play. He was more approaching it from a singular point of view to address the issue brought up by OP.

In a tournament where the average M is less then 6 it's basically a shove fest. However, by being aggressive you steal from those that are holding onto their M of six and willing to go to 5 to look for a better spot. I look for people playing this way and capitalize on it.