who cares about M
 

Oh My God!!! Did he really say that??? Listen, I've heard Harrington's books are good. I don't know, I haven't read them. Using "M" or "EV" or whatever, as a crutch can't be profitable.

"I didn't push with AQo and 4k b/c my M was 5.7 and you're only supposed to push if your M is less than 5."

"Which is the better cEV play, which is the better $EV play."

I'll tell you what, think about what you think is the better play, figure out for yourself whether you think pushing with 4k and blinds of 150/300 is the best play with AQo. Books are there for us to read and figure out how they fit into our game to create the most profitable situations. Only by experimenting and figuring out what style/play works best for you and for your particular situation is the only way to become a great player. Good players can recite their "M" and what TPFAP says to do in each situation. Great players read HOH and TPFAP and adjust what they say to fit to their game and develop themselves individually.


Flame away, and I'm sorry David.

Re: who cares about M
 

Standard.


Nah, Im playing but its true... its kinda like a religion, you have the people who translate the bible (TOP, HOH) and you have the ones who take everything super literally.

It says in every major book, good players adapt, and they find their own style, their own groove.

Im sure David agrees with you.

Re: who cares about M
 

I don't think HOH contradicts you on the AQo scenario anyway.

Re: who cares about M
 

One should not read to memorize, but with a critical point of view(critical does`nt neccicarely mean negative); do I agree/disagree and why? Have I thought about it like this? Will I think about it like this in the future? Read to broaden your mind, and to know what different intelects might consider important .Sometimes some book might just help you describe better what you already knew. There are always room for interpretation and nuances.What you are told to be the truth today might be false tomorrow. Incanity is per definition repeting the same action over and over expecting a different result. A.Einstein

Re: who cares about M
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think HOH contradicts you on the AQo scenario anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referencing this: linky

Re: who cares about M
 

yeah, i haven't read HOH yet, but it can't correct to base all of your decisions on this number M, if that were the case we would be playing blackjack.

It may be a decent guideline, but i think many people have started ignoring many other considerations.

Re: who cares about M
 

I think you're arguing against a bit of a strawman here. I don't see many people talking about the difference between an M of 5 versus 5.7. Even Harrington only talks about the importance of M in broad categories (1-5, 5-10, 10-20, etc).

Back before Harrington wrote his books we used to say that if you have less than 10xBB your opening raise should always be a push. I hope no one took that to mean that it's illegal to push if you have 10.2 BB.

The point of M, which most people still are not getting, is that when your M is low you need to make your first priority getting back to a high M, not merely surviving in your low-M state. I still see people with an M of 4 wanting to avoid a likely coinflip and save their chips for a better spot. This is generally wrong.

The idea behind Harringon's theory of M is to get your warning bells to go off earlier than they otherwise might. You shouldn't be thinking "I have enough chips to fold for 4 orbits, so I don't need to get involved here." You should be thinking, "With an M of 4, I really need to take a gamble soon." And yes, the importance of this idea is completely independent of calculating your M down to 3 decimal places, so I don't disagree with the original post in that respect.

Re: who cares about M
 

[ QUOTE ]
Oh My God!!! Did he really say that??? Listen, I've heard Harrington's books are good. I don't know, I haven't read them. Using "M" or "EV" or whatever, as a crutch can't be profitable.

"I didn't push with AQo and 4k b/c my M was 5.7 and you're only supposed to push if your M is less than 5."

"Which is the better cEV play, which is the better $EV play."

I'll tell you what, think about what you think is the better play, figure out for yourself whether you think pushing with 4k and blinds of 150/300 is the best play with AQo. Books are there for us to read and figure out how they fit into our game to create the most profitable situations. Only by experimenting and figuring out what style/play works best for you and for your particular situation is the only way to become a great player. Good players can recite their "M" and what TPFAP says to do in each situation. Great players read HOH and TPFAP and adjust what they say to fit to their game and develop themselves individually.


Flame away, and I'm sorry David.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the problem whenever there is any sort of instructional guide written on ANYTHING. What starts out as a way to make someone think about an issue (i.e. "I need to open aggressively when my stack is low"), becomes set in stone as some sort of rule of law.

IMO, whether its M, cEV, $EV, these are all simple descriptors that point to concepts that most of us playing the game already knew about. Even though they/we may not use this terminology, it is still ever-present.

In the tread you referred to, only one poster was harping on the "M" thing. But people starting out need the "system" sometimes, then as their game develops they leave behind the rigidity of what they first learned and it becomes instinctual.

Think of it like martial arts, a beginner does "forms". He/she cant use them in an actual fight and win usually...maybe theyll get lucky once in awhile and win, but if they keep practicing using the rigid construct first taught them, eventually they will be able to parce through it and become their own fighter, using the tools without even thinking about them. The same applies to poker. But I think its good you pointed it out, because, although obvious, it is irritating when posters give advice based solely on these guidelines.

Re: who cares about M
 

I had a long response typed up but when I re-read it I realized I had simply rehashed everything you said using different words. So I will just say "agreed" and go away.

Most people don't realize how much better their poker game will get when they slowly start to stray away from the books and put their own personal spin on it.

Re: who cares about M
 

As an aside, the other thing I don't like about "M" is that it seems to harp too much on pre-flop play. In volume one when Harrington gives a preview of inflection points he gives a good example of having a marginal hand in a huge pot and going for it then and there. I found it much more interesting then the pre-flop pushing examples which should be very obvious.

Re: who cares about M
 

[ QUOTE ]
the other thing I don't like about "M" is that it seems to harp too much on pre-flop play

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, isn't that its point? Post-flop you'll need another guide; M seems to be mainly a pre-flop guide.


[ QUOTE ]
the pre-flop pushing examples which should be very obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obvious to you, perhaps...not necessarily to everyone.

Re: who cares about M
 

[ QUOTE ]
As an aside, the other thing I don't like about "M" is that it seems to harp too much on pre-flop play. In volume one when Harrington gives a preview of inflection points he gives a good example of having a marginal hand in a huge pot and going for it then and there. I found it much more interesting then the pre-flop pushing examples which should be very obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's very true. There are any number of difficult post-flop decisions where one's chip standing can be the tie-breaking factor. It's similar to situations in limit or stud where at some point you say, for better or for worse, this is the hand I'm going to go broke with.

Re: who cares about M
 

I agree 100% with Gavin's point, and I think its symptomatic of something bigger. The vast majority of poker players, the vast majority of people in most walks of life, want easy answers. Most posters here, post hand questions because they want to be told what to do. To that end, they love M. M provides them with a rule that is easy to follow (especially online where often everybody's M is low). The fact is that 95% of posters, and players never fullfill their potential because they never stop asking to be told what to do and start trying to learn how to figure it out for themselves. M is a useful tool to figure situations out, and the best players will see it as such. But as in most areas the vast majority will substitute a blind rule for thought, and hamstring their own progress.

Re: who cares about M
 

I think "M" was/is used as an easy way to demonstrate a concept. Much the same as any of the other books using the 4x or 2x + 2 rules for calculating pot odds.

Sadly, just like pot odds you have people who take things too seriously. Just like people who wouldn't call because their M was .7 over the needed range, you have people who won't call because the pot is laying them 4.8 when they need 5.0 to call. They never consider implied odds.

Re: who cares about M
 

[ QUOTE ]
One should not read to memorize, but with a critical point of view(critical does`nt neccicarely mean negative); do I agree/disagree and why? Have I thought about it like this? Will I think about it like this in the future? Read to broaden your mind, and to know what different intelects might consider important .Sometimes some book might just help you describe better what you already knew. There are always room for interpretation and nuances.What you are told to be the truth today might be false tomorrow. Incanity is per definition repeting the same action over and over expecting a different result. A.Einstein

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, a dictionary would really help [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: who cares about M
 

I absolutely love this post. People are taking HOH and following to a T. You have to play each situation differently. Each hand is independent of each other and must be played differently. Everyone here has read HOH and keeps talking "well my M is this I must push". No you don't HOH is a book that helps you add to your game it doesn't make your game for you.

Re: who cares about M
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree 100% with Gavin's point, and I think its symptomatic of something bigger. The vast majority of poker players, the vast majority of people in most walks of life, want easy answers. Most posters here, post hand questions because they want to be told what to do. To that end, they love M. M provides them with a rule that is easy to follow (especially online where often everybody's M is low). The fact is that 95% of posters, and players never fullfill their potential because they never stop asking to be told what to do and start trying to learn how to figure it out for themselves. M is a useful tool to figure situations out, and the best players will see it as such. But as in most areas the vast majority will substitute a blind rule for thought, and hamstring their own progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

but what if we aren't as smart as you or gavin. can M maximize a certain player's EV given that they have trouble finding their 'own personal style'. It's like teaching someone who is just starting out how to play. You don't teach them about calling raises from the BB w/ 67s and deep stacks right away because you are afraid of the risk/reward going in the wrong direction on a 6 high flop.

Re: who cares about M
 

I dont disagree that having guidelines for beginning players is good. My point is that if you're trying to improve your game (note to gavin, examine my use of correct punctuation) you would be better served trying to understand the concepts behind the guidelines, then continually examining hands that are right on the push/fold border of that guideline. That is, why is it important to gamble when im short, not exactly how short do i need to be to push A9 from UTG+3.5.

Re: who cares about M
 

[ QUOTE ]
I dont disagree that having guidelines for beginning players is good. My point is that if you're trying to improve your game (note to gavin, examine my use of correct punctuation) you would be better served trying to understand the concepts behind the guidelines, then continually examining hands that are right on the push/fold border of that guideline. That is, why is it important to gamble when im short, not exactly how short do i need to be to push A9 from UTG+3.5.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree.

Re: who cares about M
 

Interesting discussion.

M is a useful tool but as many seem to have said it's not the end all be all of how to play. HOH doesn't tell the reader it's the only tool to use. Situation, opponents play, and their stack sizes, among many things have to combine to help a player determine the proper play in a given situation. Some never get past playing by the numbers, ie playing a certain way because the books tell them that's optimum. Personally I like M, but only an idiot plays one dimensionally.

Re: who cares about M
 

I have found the "M" concept to be incredibly useful in developing a framework for deciding which hands to play at various stages of a tournament, and the manner in which they should be played. Most people talk about "M" only in terms of the pre-flop all-in. But Harrington goes beyond just that decision in addressing when you should play speculative hands like suited connectors and small pairs.

"M" is far superior to the xBB "rule" for two reasons. One, it takes into consideration antes. Two, by using his modified "M" it is a better framework for shorthanded play when you're paying the blinds much more quickly and have to be even more aggressive then at a full table.

The problem that I see in how "M" was presented was the "Zone" concept. It looks great. It sounds great. But it creates this artifical boundary of what you should do in the Red Zone vs. the Orange Zone, etc. From the beginning I've thought about "M" in a continuum sense. As my "M" goes from high to low, my default way of playing certain hands change. I might play a hand the same way if my "M" is a 4 or 5, but not a 9, even though 5 and 9 are in the same "zone". I'm sure most people here understand this point but that many readers outside of the forum take the zones too literally.

Of course, there are other things we need to consider in our decisions like the stacks, aggressiveness, and looseness of players left to act (in addition to how we are perceived at the time). And I think those factors are what sway us when we are at an "M" where the decision is close as to how to play the hand. And that's the difference between an average player and an above average player - intuitively knowing how to play hands where there is a close decision.

If a beginning player did nothing but take "M" literally, he would be far ahead of most of his competitors. In that sense, "M" was a wonderful contribution to poker theory. And here on the MTT forum, we extend that to the fine subtleties that are included in HOH but often glanced over or misunderstood, and with the addition of all the other knowledge and wisdom we have accumulated hopefully take our game to an even greater level.

Re: who cares about M
 

[ QUOTE ]

"I didn't push with AQo and 4k b/c my M was 5.7 and you're only supposed to push if your M is less than 5."

[/ QUOTE ]

It's clear you didn't read the book. How can you criticize something you haven't read based on what others have said? Harrington points out that many times you would want to push when your M is above 5. He notes opening smaller pocket pairs for instance with a push in the "orange zone" (M = 6-10). AQ would fall in the same category as a potential way to play it. There aren't any hard fast rules in the book saying only to push when your M is 5 or less.

Eric

Re: who cares about M
 

Anyone that thinks Harrington's use of "M" (a means of adjusting your play based on your stack size) is devoid of the ability to consider all the elements of the hand including your image, the table image, recent showdowns, stack sizes etc. either doesn't understand what they read, or as in the case of OP didn't read it in the first place.

"M" considerations themsleves, even as described in the book are fluid and GENERAL guidelines. he doesn't even ATTEMPT to set any hard and fast rules about which hands to play and how to play them. The whole concept is a general idea about how you should adjust your play taking all things into consideration. The criticisms presented here are presented in (admitted) ignorance. Why are they given credence then? Why are they even worth discussing?

Re: who cares about M
 

Don't wanna read the responses, but I agree 100% and have been tempted to make this post like 50 times. That book is a total crutch for most players, and I HATE HATE HATE it.

Re: who cares about M
 

....I dont think any book could be a crutch, since nine out of ten examples in HOH1 (havent read two yet) are just that, general examples. Its not like Im taking the book to my computer with me, and going....

"okay its early in a one table online tournament. Player A has been playing a wild aggressive strategy"....

come on.

Re: who cares about M
 

I think the criticism is more on how people are interpreting and using "M" than the manner in which it was presented originally by Harrington. And I do agree with that. Too many people ARE using "M" zones as a hard and fast rule on how to play various hands.

Re: who cares about M
 

I also agree with this and what MLG is saying. I like Harrington's books, but I think the most important part of learning from them is actually thinking about the concepts yourself. By this I mean, not just reading the material as "this is how to play correctly", but rather thinking about how that "this is how many of my opponents think and play so how can I best counter it."

I remember when i first read the probe bet stuff and all I could think about is how easy it is to raise these bets with nothing. And also that if one is going to be probe betting that they should be adding in strong hands such as sets when the opponent is aggressive. Harrington touches on these concepts but does not emphasize them enough IMO.

I guess my point is similar to MLG's. Thinking about the material and coming up with your ideas is going to be much more effective than following the book word for word.

Re: who cares about M
 

[ QUOTE ]

I guess my point is similar to MLG's. Thinking about the material and coming up with your ideas is going to be much more effective than following the book word for word.

[/ QUOTE ]
What if the book itself says you should think about the material and come up with your own ideas, and adjust the information to your own style (which it does)? Aren't you following it word for word?

You people aren't unique or creative snowflakes. Harrington says the same thing you're saying himself. You are following his advice word for word.

Re: who cares about M
 

his name is richard paulson.


you are not harrington's [censored] khakis!!

Re: who cares about M
 

First, I agree with what I think the underlying point of your post was.

Players should try to understand why HOH suggests the different strategies with regard to 'M'. There are no strict rules, etc etc.

But your post came across as very 'high and mighty'. People in the know, often have a hard time grasping how others have to look at the world. For the vast majority of players. They are much better suited finding a correct set of rules, and following them perfectly.

I will draw a parallel to my world (finance). For 90% of investors that I know, they would be best suited following a strict guideline (Buy X% Large cap stocks, Buy Y% Small cap, etc). If they really understood why those recomendations are being made, they would be better suited following a more active approach.

People can't be "great" vs. "good" poker players for the same reasons, they cant be "great" vs "good" investors. It is either:
-They are not intelligent enough.
-They are not knowledgable enough.

For poker players that have put enough thought and study into the game that they have read HOH (1&2) and regularly post on 2+2, if they are following strict guidelines based on M, there is a very real chance, that that is the best they can do. I dont mean this as an insult to anyone's overall intelligence, more towards poker IQ. The two are generally related, but far from perfectly.

MLG talked about how players should look more towards learning how to think, than for answers. This also assumes that players are capable of thinking on a higher level. For a lot of players. What David Sklansky tells us to do, is as good as we can get.

For players with the ability to do better than what is recomended in HOH and TPFAP, it isnt very likely that they will be quoting strict M guidelines anyway. For a large % of the poker world, being "good" is the ultimate goal.

(climbing down from soap box)

Re: who cares about M
 

I completely agree.


I've said it like a billion times but HOH is a dangerous book. I havent read it, but it only seems to make people make the right move for the wrong reasons and make a wrong move for a wrong reason.

Re: who cares about M
 

honestly I dont see why. maybe this is just me but the big thing I garnered from HOH 1 was really just how to think through a poker decision, the mental processes. Of course, its all extremely intuitive to me now, it just helped me push my thinking in the right direction.

With a game as varying and unscientific as NL, how could you expect a roadmap?

I think that alot of the people who want X and Y decisions might be better off playing limit.

Re: who cares about M
 

[ QUOTE ]
I completely agree.


I've said it like a billion times but HOH is a dangerous book. I havent read it, but it only seems to make people make the right move for the wrong reasons and make a wrong move for a wrong reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

HoH2, not HoH1, but yeah, you're right about that.

I've never used the term 'M' in any of my posts since it came out and I have no plans to start. It's a nice tool, but can be misused very badly and lots of people have been doing that.

If you remember what M *is* and then never actually think about it again except as a reference point, you're probably playing correctly.

Re: who cares about M
 

[ QUOTE ]
Harrington touches on these concepts but does not emphasize them enough IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a key statement and very true. Except that I believe he does emphasize them enough in the sense that those we are really trying to improve their game will read these subtleties and understand their importance. Those that can't pick up on them are probably not ready to utilize them.

Re: who cares about M
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree 100% with Gavin's point, and I think its symptomatic of something bigger. The vast majority of poker players, the vast majority of people in most walks of life, want easy answers. Most posters here, post hand questions because they want to be told what to do. To that end, they love M. M provides them with a rule that is easy to follow (especially online where often everybody's M is low). The fact is that 95% of posters, and players never fullfill their potential because they never stop asking to be told what to do and start trying to learn how to figure it out for themselves. M is a useful tool to figure situations out, and the best players will see it as such. But as in most areas the vast majority will substitute a blind rule for thought, and hamstring their own progress.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, yes, i agree with you guys that looking for the easy answer and for a formulistic way to play based on your M is going to hurt people's games. even when shortstacked, and you have limited options, there still is more complexity to how the hand should best be played.

HOWEVER... looking at M away from the table, and going through and doing some math using pokerstove and some sample calling ranges with N remaining players to act can be HUGELY helpful (at least i think it has been for me) Sorry if i came off as trying to say a lame one-size-fits-all rule in the other thread with the M under 5 push thing... but i think that using that as a rule is better than using the 10x BB rule, b/c raising and not getting allin with an M of 5 is rarely a good play. based on how low your M is (below 5, and your position, looseness of players left to act and your hands can usually tell you whether the push is correct, but i think putting money in without the intent to go all the way when your M gets that low is going to be almost always wrong.

Not that this makes it correct, but i spoke with the player who is credited with coming up with the M figure, and he agreed that 5 is the critical point where he'll never put chips in below that without the intent to get them all in. it could be a limp with the intent to call a push, a raise with intent to call a push, or a straight push depending on other factors, but rarely will it be anything but trying to play for all your chips.

hard and fast rules in poker usually suck, but putting in 1/4 of your chips late in a tourney and folding when getting over 2:1 preflop sucks more in most cases.

Re: who cares about M
 

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
I don't think HOH contradicts you on the AQo scenario anyway.



I was referencing this: linky

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm sorry if i came off as trying to advice a too cookie cutter type strategy there, and i know you've had WAY more big cashes than me... so i'm interested to learn what a better player than myself thinks about in these spots. personally i find that M is much more important here, not in blindly using it, but rather usinig it to determine the odds you're laying to pick up the pot. i mean with an M of only 5 and a strong hand like AQ it seems like either adding 20% to your stack almost always and being about 2:1 if called (very tight game), or adding 20% a decent amount and usually being even money or better if called (looser game) is often a good result.

on the other hand if your M were 10, you could much more afford to make a normal raise and then decide what to do the rest of the hand depending on what played out. laying 9:1 to pick up the pot is a WHOLE lot different than laying 4:1.

Re: who cares about M
 

I think we need to keep in mind the audience. These books are more intended for idiots like me struggling to make money in 5 and 10 dollar buy-ins, or maybe even the guys that play 50 and 100-dollar buy-ins, than bracelet-winners. For idiots like me, some general rules get us headed in the right direction so that someday we can make the kind of decisions you are suggesting in your post. Without this forum or books like HOH, we'd probably never get there.

Re: who cares about M
 

You've completely missed the point of my post.

Re: who cares about M
 

I think you took my post as a shot at you. This was not my intention. I read it and and about 3 other posts that were all about the person's M. I used an example from your post b/c it was the one hand I saw where I disagree completely with what M says to do.

Perhaps I should change the title of my post...
 

To: Think for Yourselves.

This was not supposed to be a discussion on the merit of M. This was a post to get people thinking critically about the game and experimenting with different ideas and strategies that may improve the way you play. This thread has become proof of my point. Everyone read the title and the post and thought I am bashing M. I'm not. I am trying to propose the idea that you should read a book and think about whether you agree or disagree with the information, how you can apply the concepts, which concepts you need to apply, and how it can help your game overall.

THIS IS FRUSTRATING ME, I WISH I WAS A BETTER WRITER AND IT WAS EASIER FOR ME TO SAY WHAT I WANT TO SAY.