who cares about M

[sirpupnyc]

[ 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 ]
the pre-flop pushing examples which should be very obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obvious to you, perhaps...not necessarily to everyone.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's very true. There are any number of difficult post-flop decisions where one's chip standing can be the tie-breaking factor. It's similar to situations in limit or stud where at some point you say, for better or for worse, this is the hand I'm going to go broke with.

[MLG]

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.

[MrMoo]

I think "M" was/is used as an easy way to demonstrate a concept. Much the same as any of the other books using the 4x or 2x + 2 rules for calculating pot odds.

Sadly, just like pot odds you have people who take things too seriously. Just like people who wouldn't call because their M was .7 over the needed range, you have people who won't call because the pot is laying them 4.8 when they need 5.0 to call. They never consider implied odds.

[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]

[rockythecat99]

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.

[SossMan]

[ 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]

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]

[ 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.

Interesting discussion.

M is a useful tool but as many seem to have said it's not the end all be all of how to play. HOH doesn't tell the reader it's the only tool to use. Situation, opponents play, and their stack sizes, among many things have to combine to help a player determine the proper play in a given situation. Some never get past playing by the numbers, ie playing a certain way because the books tell them that's optimum. Personally I like M, but only an idiot plays one dimensionally.