who cares about M

[MrMoo]

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.

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.

[eboller]

[ 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

[2005]

I'M NOT CRITICIZING THE BOOK!!!!!! The point of this post is going way over the vast majority of your heads. Please, please re-read my post and figure it out.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
Please, please re-read my post and figure it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, sorry i didn't do this first. but i'm lazy and the point of the post was slightly amgbigious the first time through, but after anohther reading, and your responses i think i get your point now.

I do agree with it pretty strongly now. so many people make these posts just looking for hard and fast rules so that they don't have to put in any thought of their own, which will never lead them to be more than slight winners at best. i think i just get even more frustrated when i hear the 10x BB rule or something like that, since thats even worse strategy. i mean nonthinking type strategy usually sucks, but at least using M i feel is slightly less bad, since the odds are being taken into account with the precence of antees, which is a pretty significant variable.

[illegit]

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?

[2005]

sigh

[Roman]

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.

....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.

[Lloyd]

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.