The whole M & Q thing.

smoore · #11 (**permalink**) 10-11-2006, 03:07 PM

Don't forget, the tournaments HOH is talking about are mainly deepstack events. If you get down to M=5 when DannyN is sitting on M=120 you're in dire straits indeed. If you have M=5 but no one at your table has higher than M=20 you need to re-evaluate.

TheMightyJim2k · #12 (**permalink**) 10-11-2006, 03:21 PM

gotta disagree with you there smoore. I haven't looked at HOH2 in a couple of months but I distinctly remember harrington's long example and that it was for a relatively small stacked online tourney. He was recommending those moves at a table where I believe all of the M's were below 20 and like half were below 10.

I think is evaluation of the situation is correct given that his assumptions about the players are right. In the case of the HOH2 I think he generally makes the mistake of assuming that online players are a little tighter than they actually are. This might be the flaw that Yeltzen is pointing out. If we assume that online players are signicantly looser in calling all ins then we need to adjust our opening standards with a very small stack so that when we are called we will win enough of the time.

I also think that Harrington would argue that in a deep stack situation the "jam as first to open with a really low M" strategy would be even worse, as the large stacks could take shots at you and it would have little to no effect on their stack. The logic behind his argument is based on folding equity which is much higher the closer the stacks sizes. Even if they are small relative to the blinds.

yeltzen · #13 (**permalink**) 10-11-2006, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMightyJim2k

gotta disagree with you there smoore. I haven't looked at HOH2 in a couple of months but I distinctly remember harrington's long example and that it was for a relatively small stacked online tourney. He was recommending those moves at a table where I believe all of the M's were below 20 and like half were below 10.

I think is evaluation of the situation is correct given that his assumptions about the players are right. In the case of the HOH2 I think he generally makes the mistake of assuming that online players are a little tighter than they actually are. This might be the flaw that Yeltzen is pointing out. If we assume that online players are signicantly looser in calling all ins then we need to adjust our opening standards with a very small stack so that when we are called we will win enough of the time.

I also think that Harrington would argue that in a deep stack situation the "jam as first to open with a really low M" strategy would be even worse, as the large stacks could take shots at you and it would have little to no effect on their stack. The logic behind his argument is based on folding equity which is much higher the closer the stacks sizes. Even if they are small relative to the blinds.

Exactly. The running example through the chapter is a table of players with relatively low Ms.

smoore · #14 (**permalink**) 10-11-2006, 04:18 PM

ok, it's been awhile since I've read it.

noelsarchs · #15 (**permalink**) 10-11-2006, 04:39 PM

So how did M come into existence as a term? I think it originated via Paul Magriel or however you spell his name.

Poboy · #16 (**permalink**) 10-11-2006, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMightyJim2k

However I think he is a little over agressive for online

Dan Harrington, over aggressive?

Although I agree that online you'll get called more often. I wouldn't use any book's hand rankings as anything more than suggestions, but I don't think Harrington is too loose. You have to find the right situation for whatever strategy you are applying, so the hand rankings should be considered through the situation. I played in the Moneymaker Millions freerolls (did well in a couple, but missed the 2nd round) and played pretty differently than in the CT tourneys when I played in those.

vrecksler · #17 (**permalink**) 10-11-2006, 06:29 PM

I also think Harrington's advice is geared more towards winning. In Yeltzen's original post he mentioned he goes out on the bubble by following Action Dan literally, yet if he had been a little more selective he can cash. But I seem to recall Harrington advocated the 'first in vigorish' when your M gets down there because you need to accumulate chips (or risk being blinded) if you want to win and this goal requires some element of risk when pushing with a less than ideal hand.

I do agree with some of the comments that the online players will call with much worse hands than any of Dan's examples, so a small adjustment is needed to Harrington's recommendations.

yeltzen · #18 (**permalink**) 10-11-2006, 07:02 PM

Again, my thread is based on what has happened to me, personally. Just seems like my best finishes are when I don't get crazy with the short-stack. If I played in a ton of tournaments, then I would probably follow the book a little more. Since I only play one or two a month, I'd rather maximize what I earn in them.

TheMightyJim2k · #19 (**permalink**) 10-11-2006, 07:18 PM

Poboy I think you are confusing the terms loose and aggressive. By no means to I think Harrington is too loose. However Harrington would definitely be considered tight-aggressive, and I believe that it is his aggression that is preempting his recommendations of small stack play.

His strategy of moving in with an extremely short stack to maximize fold equity is based the assumption that there is positive expected value from the first in vigorish (previously mentioned). The decision to make this move comes from the situation and not the hand. Harrington is "playing the player and not the cards" so to speak.

My argument is not that he is too loose but that his assesment of the amount of +ev from fold equity is off for online tournaments. I believe that you have considerably less fold equity online and thus you need to up the strength of your hand when making this move, or find a better situation (ie folded to you in late po) for it to be +ev.

Technically I am advocating playing tighter online in these situations than Harrington is, but not significantly. You still have to move in and win a pot, but I believe that Yeltzen is correct in that it is often times prudent to wait for at least a reasonable hand or stronger situation before making the move. The first-in vigorish is imho significantly less online.

Hopin2Steal · #20 (**permalink**) 10-12-2006, 07:14 PM

This is where sharkscope can come in handy. As well as your observations of how the other players play. If you get down to 4 players and one or two of them are fish, it makes more sense, imho, to wait for a premium hand since those players are more likely to make a mistake and end up allin against another stack. Hell, just today I let myself get down to 800+ in chips at 200/400, passed up a chance to go allin with AK, and, lo and behold, everybody went allin and I took second (and would have lost the hand to a QQ that made a flush). If players are still being tight and guarding their stack, Harrington's advice makes better strategy since 50% or more of the time they fold.

And if players are looser with their calls, isn't that a good thing provided you have a better hand pre-flop?