True M

[rubixstreub]

Apologize if this is old news, but interesting read and something I've certainly been overlooking:

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...egy_True_M.htm

[Roco415]

amazing post man, im not sure if i agree with the guy though... but interesting concept.

[Sprayed]

I have read his book. It goes against a lot of the 2+2 wisdom. It is a good primer for LAG play though.

[zenbitz]

It's a bit of a straw man. HOH presents a number that's easy to calculate, M. He then says "if you M is X then act like this..." It IS true that he does define it as "number of rounds remaning" (and this is technically incorrect due to tournament structure) but this is irrelvant anyway as an absolute number. It's only relative M that matters.

At no point in HOH1-3 does he UTILIZE his definition of "number of rounds remaining" to define the strategy.

What author does point out (which is an oversight by Harrington) is that HOH does NOT tell you how/when/why to adjust for different structures, or what structure you are assuming.

[rubixstreub]

I guess what I took from his post was that (a player like myself) is in a lot more trouble than he may realize earlier than he thought.

In my personal experience, where I play the lowest stakes, players tend to be very loose and it's not uncommon to see multiple all in's at any point in a hand regardless of players involved in a hand, where players are in the hand (PF, Flop, Turn, etc), or their relative position to each other.

I'm assuming if you're going to stay competive you need to take risks earlier, when you still pose a threat to other player's stacks. Too often I find myself severely short stacked on the bubble and really need to gamble while keeping my fingers crossed that someone will double me up. At that point there are just too many larger stacks willing to play very mediocre cards to knock me out with little risk to their stacks. Timing aggression is something I've always struggled with in NL games.

[JeffreyGB]

To summarize the article, "M isn't really the number of rounds you can be blinded out before busting, for a lot of reasons"

That's absolutely true, but it doesn't make M any less valuable. Realistically, no decent player is going to blind down that way in any case. I think the author of that post/book focuses too much on criticizing the definition of M, when that's not the important thing M really tells us.

The important thing M really tells us isn't how many rounds we can be blinded out. It's how important the chips in the middle are at any given point, based on stack size considerations. The lower your M, the more important they are. Structure can enter in to that, but only slightly, because picking up the blinds/antes at the current level will always be less important than picking them up at the next level (given an equal stack).

[Sprayed]

All I know is if you want to learn how to play as a maniac then buy this book. He suggests pushing all in at 20bbs and calling 3-4xbb raises when on the BU with any two when you have >30bbs for positional purposes. Some of his suggestions make sense and some make you say wtf.

[housefish17]

I dont think Harrington is trying to convey that you will last 20 rounds with an M of 20. As each round passes, your chip stack will inevitably shrink or swell, and immediatley, your M will lower (or raise). But also as the guy in the article said, the blind structures are really fast online. I generally run into 15 minute blinds. I do agree with his opinion on your "true M" how it is much lower than the HOHII M. But I don't think that is the point that Harrington was trying to make. He gives different styles for each range of M you possess, which I experimented with yesterday, and I agree with them.

A lot of people use the 5-10BB as their "inflection point" as to when they need to start pushing and loosening up, but if you look at it, if you wait till lets say 7BB with 1,500/3,000 + 150 antes (for example), every round is going to cost you (assuming 9 handed) $5,850 in chips every 9 hands. If you only have $21,000 in chips, you are seriously hurting, you got essential 3.5 rounds left (also in that time the blinds probably jumped up another level). Is that enough time to wait for a good starting hand to push? No, now you may get lucky, but 3.5 rounds will get you about 31 hands, and more than likely none of which you would be that comfortable to go all in with on a regular basis to risk a tournament. Thats why I think Harrington says to start loosening up earlier to prevent you from getting into this bind and keeping you comfortable and playing a normal solid poker game. If you are sticking around with 10BB, there is almost no way to play a normal poker game without commiting all your chips to the pot.

If something is broke with my post, please tell me, as I'm learning all this stuff, but from what I have read and interpreted, and then incorporated into my game, I like the M philosophy of Harrington

[timbschmidt]

Maybe I am missing something. Dan Harrington made 4 final tables in 13 years at the main even of the WSOP. Arnold Snyder is a Black Jack player. Yes, he has expertise in card counting and gambling strategy but consider the sources and their perspective results. Who would you rather take your advice from concerning MMT No Limit Hold 'Em? For my money it's Harrington hands down.

[Sprayed]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...6&fpart=1&vc=1

In this thread they argue and state the real issue of true M. M just tells you how you should be playing not necessarily how many hands you can play until you blind off.

[timbschmidt]

Perhaps I should clarify as to why I posted in this forum. The merits of Dan Harrington's use of "true M" have been demonstrated most clearly by his own success. His calculations and timing (especially playing from the short stack) using the 5 zones (Green, Orange, Yellow, Red, Dead) of M play have yielded much success. Those results alone lend more merit to Harrington's view than to Snyder's.

On a personal note: When I began implmementing HOH M play, my own results began to improve. The improvement was seen most drastically in short stack play. The 6M or below number for PUSH/FOLD mode alone completely changed my play. Based on Harrington's "true M" , short stack play has become the strongest part of my game.

Also, as others have stated, Harrington included, "true M" is a guideline to follow which gives markers for when to change your level of aggression or passivity and not a hard and fast law to be followed blindly.

Go Bucks!