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.

[TroutMaskReplica]

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

[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

[2005]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referencing this: linky

[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.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the problem whenever there is any sort of instructional guide written on ANYTHING. What starts out as a way to make someone think about an issue (i.e. "I need to open aggressively when my stack is low"), becomes set in stone as some sort of rule of law.

IMO, whether its M, cEV, $EV, these are all simple descriptors that point to concepts that most of us playing the game already knew about. Even though they/we may not use this terminology, it is still ever-present.

In the tread you referred to, only one poster was harping on the "M" thing. But people starting out need the "system" sometimes, then as their game develops they leave behind the rigidity of what they first learned and it becomes instinctual.

Think of it like martial arts, a beginner does "forms". He/she cant use them in an actual fight and win usually...maybe theyll get lucky once in awhile and win, but if they keep practicing using the rigid construct first taught them, eventually they will be able to parce through it and become their own fighter, using the tools without even thinking about them. The same applies to poker. But I think its good you pointed it out, because, although obvious, it is irritating when posters give advice based solely on these guidelines.

[tpir90036]

I had a long response typed up but when I re-read it I realized I had simply rehashed everything you said using different words. So I will just say "agreed" and go away.

Most people don't realize how much better their poker game will get when they slowly start to stray away from the books and put their own personal spin on it.

[tpir90036]

As an aside, the other thing I don't like about "M" is that it seems to harp too much on pre-flop play. In volume one when Harrington gives a preview of inflection points he gives a good example of having a marginal hand in a huge pot and going for it then and there. I found it much more interesting then the pre-flop pushing examples which should be very obvious.