who cares about M - Page 3

MLG · #1 10-06-2005, 01:28 PM

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.

rockythecat99 · #2 10-06-2005, 01:35 PM

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.

Lloyd · #3 10-06-2005, 01:57 PM

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.

tshak · #4 10-06-2005, 10:18 PM

Great post. Furthermore, I really like Harrington's structured hand analysis, which is driven not only by M, but many other considerations. It helps you apply situational data to your final decision. I don't see anywhere in HOH2 that looks like a simple "zone based allin system", but I guess I can see how one might misinterpret it.

SossMan · #5 10-06-2005, 01:35 PM

[ 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.

MLG · #6 10-06-2005, 01:42 PM

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.

SossMan · #7 10-06-2005, 01:52 PM

[ 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.

pfkaok · #8 10-06-2005, 03:27 PM

[ 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.

2005 · #9 10-06-2005, 04:29 PM

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.

pfkaok · #10 10-06-2005, 04:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

yep, i type slow. you beat me to it. i did think it was a shot at me, but i was just trying to fully say where i was coming from in the other post. i'm not one who likes to stubbornly and illogically defend my posts, but i do like to at least try to fully make my point. that way when a better player still refutes it its easier for me to rethink my current strategies and LEARN something, which is why i'm here.