[jojobinks]

M is different than what most talk about.

M = your stack/starting pot size

this is very different than the 10bb thing that most players talk about. I"m not sure how this plays out, b/c i haven't gotten to the problems yet. i look forward to discussion, though.

talk it up out there, team!

btw, if i can finish this book in the next 36 hours or so, i'm sure to win the ct.net tourny!

[pager23]

Originally Posted by jojobinks

M is different than what most talk about.

M = your stack/starting pot size

this is very different than the 10bb thing that most players talk about. I"m not sure how this plays out, b/c i haven't gotten to the problems yet. i look forward to discussion, though.

talk it up out there, team!

btw, if i can finish this book in the next 36 hours or so, i'm sure to win the ct.net tourny!

Is it similar to what Gigabet discusses over on 2+2?

[jojobinks]

no, not really.

gigabet is, although certainly a kickass player, is pretty inarticulate. just try to make sense of that post... i tried yesterday, to some success, but it's not well stated. from what i can tell, he's saying a -ev play from a chip-perspective can be worthwhile if by winning the hand you greatly increase your chance of winning the tournament. the flip is also true. a small +ev play is undesirable if it can hurt you more than it can help.

harrington is still, of course, a pretty solid player. gig's theory is sorta maniacal. harrington's is just an adjustment to the "when your stack is to a point that you've got to make a move" theory.

[smoore]

don't have the book yet. considering ordering it right now

haha, dumbasses... it's still in "preorder" on the twoplustwo home page... hahaha. amazon (those evil bastards) has it in paperback, barnesandnoble.com has the cheapest price, and in hardback?!?!?! I think that's a typo, I'm pretty sure that 2+2 only does paperback. Anyway, B&N beats out the evil software patenting a-holes but they seem to be in preorder mode also. I'll just wait awhile.

[SpaceMonkey]

I'm not sure it's very different, just a more accurate way of looking and calculating where you (and the other players) are at. Especially when blinds are involved in an 8-10 man table. Let's take a look:

For example, say you have 2000 chips at a full table and blinds are 100/200. You have 10xbb and need to make a move soon.

Your M is 6.7 And you're in the Orange Zone (6-10), but close to the Red Zone(1-5). Same principles and strategies apply b/t Orange theory and 10bb theory, I think.

If you throw in an ante of 25, your M falls down to 4.6 All-in or nothing.

So what it does is makes you make moves earlier than the 10bb "rule" when antes are in play. Which gives you more folding equity, and thus makes it a sounder, more concrete, statistic.

What do you think jojo / everyone?

What was really cool to me was the SHAL (Structured Hand Analysis).

[Q10 soooted]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I'm not sure it's very different, just a more accurate way of looking and calculating where you (and the other players) are at. Especially when blinds are involved in an 8-10 man table. Let's take a look:

For example, say you have 2000 chips at a full table and blinds are 100/200. You have 10xbb and need to make a move soon.

Your M is 6.7 And you're in the Orange Zone (6-10), but close to the Red Zone(1-5). Same principles and strategies apply b/t Orange theory and 10bb theory, I think.

If you throw in an ante of 25, your M falls down to 4.6 All-in or nothing.

So what it does is makes you make moves earlier than the 10bb "rule" when antes are in play. Which gives you more folding equity, and thus makes it a sounder, more concrete, statistic.

What do you think jojo / everyone?

What was really cool to me was the SHAL (Structured Hand Analysis).

You hit the nail on the head for me. Assuming the SB is 1/2 the BB won't your M always be 6.7 when you have 10xBB? I'd tend to write this off as a guy trying to put a new name on an old concept, but it does come into effect once antes are in play. Having not read the book I like this idea quite a bit. Good/simple equasion to account for antes so you don't feel secure with your 15xBB when your M could be in or near the Red Zone.

Okay - now I'll get the book so I know what to do once I'm in the red zone but over 10xBB thanks to the antes.

[CaptLego]

Just dropped by Gamblers General in LV. Picked up HOH I & II. Also got Wilson Software's Tournament Texas Hold'em.
Now, I just have to read, comprehend, and apply all that stuff....

[vrecksler]

I like the idea of M but this is from a beginner and I had never really paid any attention to my stack size relative to blinds....heck, I usually do not even know how many chips I have until after an all-in (or call) and I need to count it. So the whole concept is new to me and I think it will be nice when combined with the whole coloured level thing.

I am only half way through book 2, but so far I like it better than the first as it almost seems like it has more useable information to me since my home games are usually 10-16 people split amoung two tables. Whether or not this translates into success for me remains to be seen.

[vanquish]

My books haven't arrived yet (Wednesday, finally!) but I just wanted to say that this Topic name is the most amusing one I've read in a long while. Reminds me of Coffee Talk. Ahh, the good old days.

[vanquish]

Originally Posted by Q10 soooted

You hit the nail on the head for me. Assuming the SB is 1/2 the BB won't your M always be 6.7 when you have 10xBB? I'd tend to write this off as a guy trying to put a new name on an old concept, but it does come into effect once antes are in play. Having not read the book I like this idea quite a bit. Good/simple equasion to account for antes so you don't feel secure with your 15xBB when your M could be in or near the Red Zone.

Okay - now I'll get the book so I know what to do once I'm in the red zone but over 10xBB thanks to the antes.

Don't take this as hatin' on ya, cause I think we're in agreement that M is a useful concept... I just apparently often come off as mean...

[quote"Q10 soooted"]I'd tend to write this off as a guy trying to put a new name on an old concept, but it does come into effect once antes are in play.[/quote]

Yes and no. Yes, the 10x BB all-in or nothing concept is old. I'm guessing it's of Sklansky/Malmuth origin. The entire basis of the concept revolves around "folding equity," the idea that, at its most basic, can be described as the liklihood the remaining players will all fold to your all-in bet. At 10xbb, you have some decent leverage left. At, say, 5xbb you could reasonably expect to be called with a wide range of hands. But the whole thing is just sort of based on instinct.

I like math and I like to have some numbers to back up why I make certain moves in poker. The M concept provides this justification. I think it's valuable and important to base a potentially tournament ending all-in not just on the fact that you think you can still get people to fold, but on the fact that stealing X amount from the pot will increase my stack by Z amount, allowing me more wiggle room.

While M and 10xbb are basically the same concept, this incarnation of it shows some rationale for its existence.