[Darius]

While it appears that 10x BB rule and M are similar. I think the tactics that you use for the different zones is the key thing. Knowing to just play normal when in the green zone. Or to get rid of speculative hands in the yellow and lower.

There's also the effective M which takes into account short handed play. So if you're playing 6 people instead of 10 at a table multiply your M by .6 to get your effective M. I'm still reading through the hands at the end of this section. But it seems to me this would get crazy at a final table. When you get down to say 3 people. It would seem that you would be moving in a bunch from the button and small blind if the button folded. I guess it would depend on how large the blinds were and that would dictate your M.

The zones are probably the best part of it though.

[jojobinks]

Originally Posted by Darius

While it appears that 10x BB rule and M are similar. I think the tactics that you use for the different zones is the key thing. Knowing to just play normal when in the green zone. Or to get rid of speculative hands in the yellow and lower.

There's also the effective M which takes into account short handed play. So if you're playing 6 people instead of 10 at a table multiply your M by .6 to get your effective M. I'm still reading through the hands at the end of this section. But it seems to me this would get crazy at a final table. When you get down to say 3 people. It would seem that you would be moving in a bunch from the button and small blind if the button folded. I guess it would depend on how large the blinds were and that would dictate your M.

The zones are probably the best part of it though.

that's exactly right, darius. and if you ever watch high blind supershorthanded situations (PP Sng's, for instance), you will see a lot of moving in.

the players that get raped ITM on those tournys are those that limp a lot, b/c they dont' know why everyone else keeps on moving in on them, and don't have the nuts to make a call once in a while.

oh dear, how macho of me to say!

[jldecarlo]

Originally Posted by Darius

While it appears that 10x BB rule and M are similar. I think the tactics that you use for the different zones is the key thing. Knowing to just play normal when in the green zone. Or to get rid of speculative hands in the yellow and lower.

There's also the effective M which takes into account short handed play.

I find the M concept to be very useful. It is similar to the 10xBB rule, but it really says how many times the deal can go around before you are blinded out. The "effective M" is also a nice way to modify the concept with short tables.

Differences that I see between M as defined in HoH and 10xBB are that the M concept is graduated with several different zones and adjusted for short tables. On additional thing to consider is if the blinds increase very rapidly, or even if they are just about to go up, your actual effective M may be even lower than you calculate.

This concludes my rambling.

L

[Darius]

This concludes my rambling.

I was so tempted to put a </rambling> at the end of my post. I think its just the talking about M that makes you feel like you're rambling.

I can't remember if I said this before but the biggest thing its helped me with is not playing suited connectors because it's cheap and I can see a flop when my M is low. Keeps me away from the speculative hands when I shouldn't be speculating. Makes me push when I need to be pushing.

[SpeakEasy]

I have not read the “M” discussion in HOH 2 yet, but my initial thought --

M would seem to really matter when the antes kick in. We typically don’t see this in SNGs, and not in our weekly Chiptalk tournament until late. The antes really grind down the medium/small stacks. Said another way, when the blinds jump from 100/200 to 100/200/25 at a full table of nine, this is instantly a 75% increase in the size of the starting pot.

With the antes in effect, winning just the starting pot at least once every round is critical to survival for the medium/small stacks. And, this only ensures bare survival. I think this is why you read so much about regular tournaments players advocating the strategy -- “Build up your stack quickly in the early rounds, or go home.” (Or move on to the more profitable cash games...) As this strategy goes, if you haven’t become one of the larger stacks by the first or second level with the antes, then you are one lucky double-up hand away from being inevitably ground into dust by the Howitzer-like shelling effect of the antes.

Combine this thought process with the payout structure, and I can see why the ultra-loose strategy seems to be the rage among younger players. Almost all tournaments are played to make it to the final three spots, where the big payouts lie. Look at the WSOP tournament payout structures for the games going on now. A player wins 3x his buy-in if he outlasts 95% of the field. (There are, of course, some exceptions -- make it to the final 7 tables or so of the WSOP main event this year and you are mortgage-free; 63rd place will pay around $147,000...) Since a player has to get into the final 3 spots to make the serious money, its advantageous to play in a way that builds up your stack quickly, or you move on to the cash games.

What does this have to do with the discussion of “M”? It’s the M concept that forces the hand of the small/medium stacks relatively early. Therefore, more are playing fast and aggressive from the starting bell. Build up the stack to stay in the “Green Zone,” or move on to something more profitable. Sounds like Harrington has a unique way of describing the concept.