who cares about M

[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..

[tshak]

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.

[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.

[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.

[tpir90036]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the other thing I don't like about "M" is that it seems to harp too much on pre-flop play

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, isn't that its point? Post-flop you'll need another guide; M seems to be mainly a pre-flop guide.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's not. The concept of an inflection point could come up on a later street. Read the example in Vol. 1 where he has QQ on an A-high board. I don't remember what page it's on.

Sorry for the slight thread hi-jacking as I know discussing M was not the point.

[burningyen]

[ QUOTE ]
I care about M.

M is good.

I like M.

[/ QUOTE ]
M is nice.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
I've said it like a billion times but HOH is a dangerous book. I havent read it, but it only seems to make people make the right move for the wrong reasons and make a wrong move for a wrong reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how you can determine "it's a dangerous book" without even reading it. I believe that HoH I & II are both great books (though II does have some really bad hand examples as pointed out numerous times by Andanthar, I believe) and can really speed up the learning curve for a THINKING player.

If your contention is that the material is often being applied wrongly and/or taken too literally by readers, well then I suppose you can try to blame the books. However, I've read both books several times and Harrington is constantly reminding the reader that often there is no one "correct" move for any given situation.

The books strive to teach players how to think about situations and make moves based on the totality of the situation.

[Exitonly]

yea i agree that it's pretty ridiculous saying it's a 'dangerous book' and i've said that the other times you've said it too.

The book is meant to educate, just because some people take it too literally doesn't mean it does more harm than good.

Both HOH are very good books, and most everyone would benifit from reading them. Nothing breathtaking, but just good reading.

[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.