who cares about M

[illegit]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
When you end your post with 'flame away' it seems like you knew your post might cause controversy. If all you're saying is to 'think for yourself' I doubt that would induce many people to flame you as it's a fairly obvious and benign point. The fact is that m itself is a direct calculation; how to play given your M is not a direct calculation nor an excuse to not 'think for yourself'. It's not a machine called DecisionMaker5000 where you plug in your situation and it spits out an answer. And, truthfully, I see very few players incorrectly treating it as such (but if they were, they shouldn't) including in the AQ post you referenced. So i don't really even get what's at issue here. Everyone makes their own decisions. Everyone does think for themselves. Even people who decide to completely conform and devote themselves to a set of principles are thinking for themselves when they do so. They are thinking "being a follower works for me". And so be it. What's wrong with that? If it works it works, if it doesn't it doesn't.

[sirio11]

I care about M.

M is good.

I like M.

[MLG]

I agree. M is a great movie.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. M is a great movie.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, it was pretty good, but as always, the book was much better!

[burningyen]

[ QUOTE ]
I care about M.

M is good.

I like M.

[/ QUOTE ]
M is nice.

I've read thru some of the comments to this post, and would like to mention my perspective.

When I first read Harringtons book, I learned some of the concepts like M. Did I take that to an end all be all? Nope, but it does help to avoid being in the danger zone, and not folding a hand like KTo on the bb when you have 3bb's and someone raises you because "its an easily dominated hand". Instead, it becomes a gambling hand, one where you might be a 70/30 dog or worse, but if you're not, you could have a chance to double up and get out of that danger zone, instead of digging yourself deeper.

Harringtons book also gave a real good perspective on things to look for when playing against others, and what size bets are good for what situation etc. Not going to say I took everything he said and said "I am going to play that exactly the same way!" because I don't, sometimes you got to make a play unlike your norm when you think people are studying what you do and think they can predict what you got.

His book is sort of like taking an art class, sure it may teach you how to do something new, and at first you might do it the exact same way, but eventually it changes so it's your own style. I mean, if everyone made plays in these tourneys as harrington would, then a style like gus hansens would be very sucessful and would pick up a ton of pots against a bunch of tight conseratives.

IMO, he wrote some wonderful books, and I think they are good strategys and tactics and theorys if you did stick right to the book, but to become a better player, you must adapt, and keep learning.

Like Harrington says to vary your raise to keep people guessing. Well, I'd say 80% of the time I raise, its 3x standard raise. 10% its 2.5x, and the other 10% its 4-6x. Does that mean when I make a raise thats 5x I have a bad hand? Not necessarily, sometimes I might, sometimes I don't, but most of the time a standard raise suits me just fine. Makes it harder to read me based on bet sizes.

And sometimes I make a play that Harrington would probably scoff at, but I've found it works for me alot of the time. Like when I make my raise pf, then the flop hits and I am out of position, if I make a half pot raise, it might be half my chips. I'll make that raise sometimes, sometimes even on a stone cold bluff. Thinking players will look at that raise, and think I am trying to sweeten the pot before I enevitably go all in, and know no matter what, I am calling a reraise. Gets people to fold a better hand sometimes I am sure. Would I reccomend this play to a beginner? Hell no, if they don't apply reads, they are going to get into more trouble doing this than it helps them. But sometimes you got to go against the grain.

[billyjex]

I think for a lot of players learning the concepts of "M" is a great starting basis for being a better tournament player. Learning the intracacies of every situation is something that will come along with experience. I know that when I first understood the "under 10xbb rule, time to push or fold" I became more successful at online tournaments, even though it was a very general rule.

I think after playing hundreds of tournaments can you only really understand when to adjust your pushing standards based on tightness/looseness of blinds, stages of the tournament, etc..

[Exitonly]

Day or two late, but guess i'll throw in my .02.

I completely agree that M is used far too strictly, they are guidelines nothing is set in stone and shouldn't be taken as such. Theres always more than one way to approach a situation and figuring out how many rounds you have left in you isn't going to give you the right answer.

However,

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

[/ QUOTE ]

While i think M is overused, i think EV (and cEV) is underused.. the game is a great deal mathematical and EV (and cEV) allow you to use math to try and 'solve' it. Even then theres no definite answer as there are always disagreements between the EV and cEV of plays.. but figuring out what you can gives you a good idea of where the play should go.

Dunno if i'm making sense right now, and i'm not saying EV is the ultimate/only way to analyze poker, but it's definitely not overused.

--

But i agree, great players don't just recite what HOH/TPFAP say to do, but understand that concepts and use them to help develope their games to fit their own personal style.

[tdomeski]

I have no clue what "M" is. .I'm guessing it's the number of rounds you have left before you're broke? I don't know, I don't really care. It's pretty obvious (to me at least) when it's time to make a move in a tournament and acquire chips. Also a ton depends on your table and the characters you have at your table. I guess I use the idea of 10 or less BB's a little bit, but it isn't all that hard to find hands/opportunities to steal. If they have you beat they still have to call and if they call they still have to avoid a suckout.