who cares about M

[2005]

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.

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.

[stokken]

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

[MeanGreenTT]

[ 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]

[TroutMaskReplica]

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

[2005]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referencing this: linky

[pfkaok]

[ 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.

[tshak]

[ QUOTE ]


I was referencing this: linky

[/ QUOTE ]

So what's the difference if the referenced post said, "always push with <= xBB", other than that xBB is a less accurate metric? Or maybe there is no difference, and your point is simply that you don't like the "always do this" formula? In which case, people have been coming up with charts and systems attached to BB for ages, and the fact that there's some similar strategy associated with M as well has nothing do to with the metric of BB and M per se.

While I agree with what I think is the tone of your post ("if x = y do z" is not critical thinking), I will have to defend the referenced post: Unless there's some significant information convincing me to do otherwise, I can't see how call/folding or raise/folding can ever be correct with an M <=5. That's all the post was saying, not that you should follow some "green, yellow, orange, red" system to the T.

[DireWolf]

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.

[fnurt]

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.