who cares about M

[Lloyd]

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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[colson10]

I also agree with this and what MLG is saying. I like Harrington's books, but I think the most important part of learning from them is actually thinking about the concepts yourself. By this I mean, not just reading the material as "this is how to play correctly", but rather thinking about how that "this is how many of my opponents think and play so how can I best counter it."

I remember when i first read the probe bet stuff and all I could think about is how easy it is to raise these bets with nothing. And also that if one is going to be probe betting that they should be adding in strong hands such as sets when the opponent is aggressive. Harrington touches on these concepts but does not emphasize them enough IMO.

I guess my point is similar to MLG's. Thinking about the material and coming up with your ideas is going to be much more effective than following the book word for word.

[illegit]

[ QUOTE ]

I guess my point is similar to MLG's. Thinking about the material and coming up with your ideas is going to be much more effective than following the book word for word.

[/ QUOTE ]
What if the book itself says you should think about the material and come up with your own ideas, and adjust the information to your own style (which it does)? Aren't you following it word for word?

You people aren't unique or creative snowflakes. Harrington says the same thing you're saying himself. You are following his advice word for word.

his name is richard paulson.


you are not harrington's [censored] khakis!!

[A_PLUS]

First, I agree with what I think the underlying point of your post was.

Players should try to understand why HOH suggests the different strategies with regard to 'M'. There are no strict rules, etc etc.

But your post came across as very 'high and mighty'. People in the know, often have a hard time grasping how others have to look at the world. For the vast majority of players. They are much better suited finding a correct set of rules, and following them perfectly.

I will draw a parallel to my world (finance). For 90% of investors that I know, they would be best suited following a strict guideline (Buy X% Large cap stocks, Buy Y% Small cap, etc). If they really understood why those recomendations are being made, they would be better suited following a more active approach.

People can't be "great" vs. "good" poker players for the same reasons, they cant be "great" vs "good" investors. It is either:
-They are not intelligent enough.
-They are not knowledgable enough.

For poker players that have put enough thought and study into the game that they have read HOH (1&2) and regularly post on 2+2, if they are following strict guidelines based on M, there is a very real chance, that that is the best they can do. I dont mean this as an insult to anyone's overall intelligence, more towards poker IQ. The two are generally related, but far from perfectly.

MLG talked about how players should look more towards learning how to think, than for answers. This also assumes that players are capable of thinking on a higher level. For a lot of players. What David Sklansky tells us to do, is as good as we can get.

For players with the ability to do better than what is recomended in HOH and TPFAP, it isnt very likely that they will be quoting strict M guidelines anyway. For a large % of the poker world, being "good" is the ultimate goal.

(climbing down from soap box)