[Proofrock]

I think you're oversimplifying this here. In the example you provide, your M is roughly 4, which isn't good, but you aren't desperate enough to push anything from early position. In the section on red zone strategy, Harrington includes clauses like, "If your position is good enough (say because five or six of players have folded to you) then you should be willing to go all-in with all but the very worst hands." (p. 140) When he states the "3-to-1 Rule" on page 141 (giving whether it's +EV to push when you're a 2-to-1 dog), part 3 states that "you think there's a 50 percent chance that your remaining opponents will fold to an all-in bet." UTG+1, with 5 players left to act behind you, I wouldn't confidently say that there's 50% chance that the remaining opponents will fold, and with M = 4 you're still above the point where this 3-to-1 rule strictly applies.

At any rate, the section on structured hand analysis provides the methodology for determining for yourself whether or not it would be +EV to push in this specific case. The great strength of the book and its application to SnGs, in my opinion, is in outlining the principles and demonstrating the thought process used in deciding how to play a hand, not in giving a strict formula for playing tournaments.

Do you have any specific examples of analysis that you think is flawed in the book(s) in regards to SNG strategy? I'm interested in having a dialogue about this, since I'd like to improve my understanding of the strategy.

-cj