onabet sd solution 15 ml,casas de apostas valor mínimo 1 real,casas de apostas valor minimo 5 reais-caeng.com.br

onabet sd solution 15 ml

O aplicativo OnABET é uma ferramenta útil para aqueles que trabalham na área da engenharia e tecnologia. Ele fornece uma 💶 maneira fácil de se comunicar e compartilhar informações relacionadas a engenharia, tecnologia e ciência. Com o OnABET, você pode acessar 💶 informações técnicas, falar sobre as últimas tendências em onabet sd solution 15 ml tecnologia e participar de discussões sobre ciência e engenharia com pessoas 💶 de todo o mundo.

Além disso, o aplicativo OnABET também oferece uma variedade de recursos para ajudar os usuários a se 💶 manterem atualizados sobre as últimas notícias e desenvolvimentos em onabet sd solution 15 ml suas áreas de interesse. Com suas funcionalidades avançadas de pesquisa 💶 e filtragem, você pode facilmente encontrar o conteúdo que deseja e personalizar onabet sd solution 15 ml experiência de acordo com suas preferências.

Melhor de 💶 tudo, o OnABET é fácil de usar e acessar. Ele está disponível como um aplicativo móvel, o que significa que 💶 você pode acessá-lo a qualquer momento e em onabet sd solution 15 ml qualquer lugar, diretamente no seu smartphone ou tablet. Com o OnABET, 💶 você pode se manter informado e se conectar com outras pessoas que compartilham seu interesse em onabet sd solution 15 ml engenharia, tecnologia e 💶 ciência, sempre e em onabet sd solution 15 ml todo lugar.

Os labradores são conhecidos por serem cães gananciosos, mas agora os cientistas criaram uma teoria sobre fatores genéticos que podem ❤️ estar subjacentes ao seu comportamento. O correspondente de ciência e proprietário do laboratório Nicola Davis visita a Universidade Cambridge para ❤️ conhecer o Dr Eleanor Raffan prof Giles Yeoe descobrir como entender esse caminho poderia nos ajudar melhor compreendermos bem as ❤️ crises da obesidade onabet sd solution 15 ml humanos no tratamento delas mesmas

Como ouvir podcasts: tudo o que você precisa saber

casas de apostas valor mínimo 1 real

“True M” versus Harrington’s M and Why Tournament Structure Matters

by Arnold

Snyder

(From Blackjack Forum Vol. XXVI #1, Spring 2007)

2007

Critical Flaws in the Theory and Use of “M” in Poker Tournaments

In this article,

I will address critical ⚾️ flaws in the concept of “M” as a measure of player viability in

poker tournaments. I will specifically be addressing ⚾️ the concept of M as put forth by

Dan Harrington in Harrington on Hold’em II (HOH II). My book, The ⚾️ Poker Tournament

Formula (PTF), has been criticized by some poker writers who contend that my strategies

for fast tournaments must ⚾️ be wrong, since they violate strategies based on Harrington’s

I will show that it is instead Harrington’s theory and advice ⚾️ that are wrong. I will

explain in this article exactly where Harrington made his errors, why Harrington’s

strategies are incorrect ⚾️ not only for fast tournaments, but for slow blind structures

as well, and why poker tournament structure, which Harrington ignores, ⚾️ is the key

factor in devising optimal tournament strategies.

This article will also address a

common error in the thinking of ⚾️ players who are using a combination of PTF and HOH

strategies in tournaments. Specifically, some of the players who are ⚾️ using the

strategies from my book, and acknowledge that structure is a crucial factor in any

poker tournament, tell me ⚾️ they still calculate M at the tables because they believe it

provides a “more accurate” assessment of a player’s current ⚾️ chip stack status than the

simpler way I propose—gauging your current stack as a multiple of the big blind. But ⚾️ M,

in fact, is a less accurate number, and this article will explain why.

There is a way

to calculate what ⚾️ I call “True M,” that would provide the information that Harrington’s

false M is purported to provide, but I do ⚾️ not believe there is any real strategic value

in calculating this number, and I will explain the reason for that ⚾️ too.

The Basics of

Harrington’s M Strategy

Harrington uses a zone system to categorize a player’s current

chip position. In the “green ⚾️ zone,” a player’s chip stack is very healthy and the

player can use a full range of poker skills. As ⚾️ a player’s chip stack diminishes, the

player goes through the yellow zone, the orange zone, the red zone, and finally ⚾️ the

dead zone. The zones are identified by a simple rating number Harrington calls

“M.”

What Is “M”?

In HOH II, on ⚾️ page 125, Dan Harrington defines M as: “…the ratio of

your stack to the current total of blinds and antes.” ⚾️ For example, if your chip stack

totals 3000, and the blinds are 100-200 (with no ante), then you find your ⚾️ M by

dividing 3000 / 300 = 10.

On page 126, Harrington expounds on the meaning of M to a

tournament ⚾️ player: “What M tells you is the number of rounds of the table that you can

survive before being blinded ⚾️ off, assuming you play no pots in the meantime.” In other

words, Harrington describes M as a player’s survival indicator.

If ⚾️ your M = 5, then

Harrington is saying you will survive for five more rounds of the table (five circuits

⚾️ of the blinds) if you do not play a hand. At a 10-handed table, this would mean you

have about ⚾️ 50 hands until you would be blinded off. All of Harrington’s zone strategies

are based on this understanding of how ⚾️ to calculate M, and what M means to your current

chances of tournament survival.

Amateur tournament players tend to tighten up ⚾️ their

play as their chip stacks diminish. They tend to become overly protective of their

remaining chips. This is due ⚾️ to the natural survival instinct of players. They know

that they cannot purchase more chips if they lose their whole ⚾️ stack, so they try to

hold on to the precious few chips that are keeping them alive.

If they have read ⚾️ a few

books on the subject of tournament play, they may also have been influenced by the

unfortunate writings of ⚾️ Mason Malmuth and David Sklansky, who for many years have

promulgated the misguided theory that the fewer chips you have ⚾️ in a tournament, the

more each chip is worth. (This fallacious notion has been addressed in other articles

in our ⚾️ online Library, including: Chip Value in Poker Tournaments.)

But in HOH II,

Harrington explains that as your M diminishes, which is ⚾️ to say as your stack size

becomes smaller in relation to the cost of the blinds and antes, “…the blinds ⚾️ are

starting to catch you, so you have to loosen your play… you have to start making moves

with hands ⚾️ weaker than those a conservative player would elect to play.” I agree with

Harrington on this point, and I also ⚾️ concur with his explanation of why looser play is

correct as a player’s chip stack gets shorter: “Another way of ⚾️ looking at M is to see

it as a measure of just how likely you are to get a better ⚾️ hand in a better situation,

with a reasonable amount of money left.” (Italics his.)

In other words, Harrington

devised his looser ⚾️ pot-entering strategy, which begins when your M falls below 20, and

goes through four zones as it continues to shrink, ⚾️ based on the likelihood of your

being dealt better cards to make chips with than your present starting hand. For

⚾️ example, with an M of 15 (yellow zone according to Harrington), if a player is dealt an

8-3 offsuit in ⚾️ early position (a pretty awful starting hand by anyone’s definition),

Harrington’s yellow zone strategy would have the player fold this ⚾️ hand preflop because

of the likelihood that he will be dealt a better hand to play while he still has ⚾️ a

reasonable amount of money left.

By contrast, if the player is dealt an ace-ten offsuit

in early position, Harrington’s yellow ⚾️ zone strategy would advise the player to enter

the pot with a raise. This play is not advised in Harrington’s ⚾️ green zone strategy

(with an M > 20) because he considers ace-ten offsuit to be too weak of a hand ⚾️ to play

from early position, since your bigger chip stack means you will be likely to catch a

better pot-entering ⚾️ opportunity if you wait. The desperation of your reduced chip stack

in the yellow zone, however, has made it necessary ⚾️ for you to take a risk with this

hand because with the number of hands remaining before you will be ⚾️ blinded off, you are

unlikely “…to get a better hand in a better situation, with a reasonable amount of

money ⚾️ left.”

Again, I fully agree with the logic of loosening starting hand

requirements as a player’s chip stack gets short. In ⚾️ fact, the strategies in The Poker

Tournament Formula are based in part (but not in whole) on the same logic.

But ⚾️ despite

the similarity of some of the logic behind our strategies, there are big differences

between our specific strategies for ⚾️ any specific size of chip stack. For starters, my

strategy for entering a pot with what I categorize as a ⚾️ “competitive stack” (a stack

size more or less comparable to Harrington’s “green zone”) is far looser and more

aggressive than ⚾️ his. And my short-stack strategies are downright maniacal compared to

Harrington’s strategies for his yellow, orange, and red zones.

There are ⚾️ two major

reasons why our strategies are so different, even though we agree on the logic that

looser play is ⚾️ required as stacks get shorter. Again, the first is a fundamental

difference in our overriding tournament theory, which I will ⚾️ deal with later in this

article. The second reason, which I will deal with now, is a serious flaw in

⚾️ Harrington’s method of calculating and interpreting M. Again, what Harrington

specifically assumes, as per HOH II, is that: “What M ⚾️ tells you is the number of rounds

of the table that you can survive before being blinded off, assuming you ⚾️ play no pots

in the meantime.”

But that’s simply not correct. The only way M, as defined by

Harrington, could indicate ⚾️ the number of rounds a player could survive is by ignoring

the tournament structure.

Why Tournament Structure Matters in Devising Optimal

⚾️ Strategy

Let’s look at some sample poker tournaments to show how structure matters, and

how it affects the underlying meaning of ⚾️ M, or “the number of rounds of the table that

you can survive before being blinded off, assuming you play ⚾️ no pots in the meantime.”

Let’s say the blinds are 50-100, and you have 3000 in chips. What is your ⚾️ M, according

to Harrington?

M = 3000 / 150 = 20

So, according to the explanation of M provided in

HOH II, ⚾️ you could survive 20 more rounds of the table before being blinded off,

assuming you play no pots in the ⚾️ meantime. This is not correct, however, because the

actual number of rounds you can survive before being blinded off is ⚾️ entirely dependent

on the tournament’s blind structure.

For example, what if this tournament has 60-minute

blind levels? Would you survive 20 ⚾️ rounds with the blinds at 50-100 if you entered no

pots? No way. Assuming this is a ten-handed table, you ⚾️ would go through the blinds

about once every twenty minutes, which is to say, you would only play three rounds ⚾️ at

this 50-100 level. Then the blinds would go up.

If we use the blind structure from the

WSOP Circuit events ⚾️ recently played at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, after 60 minutes

the blinds would go from 50-100 to 100-200, then ⚾️ to 100-200 with a 25 ante 60 minutes

after that. What is the actual number of rounds you would survive ⚾️ without entering a

pot in this tournament from this point? Assuming you go through the blinds at each

level three ⚾️ times,

3 x 150 = 450

3 x 300 = 900

3 x 550 = 1650

Add up the blind costs:

450 + 900 ⚾️ + 1650 = 3000.

That’s a total of only 9 rounds.

This measure of the true

“…number of rounds of the table ⚾️ that you can survive before being blinded off, assuming

you play no pots in the meantime,” is crucial in evaluating ⚾️ your likelihood of getting

“…a better hand in a better situation, with a reasonable amount of money left,” and it

⚾️ is entirely dependent on this tournament’s blind structure. For the rest of this

article, I will refer to this more ⚾️ accurate structure-based measure as “True M.” True M

for this real-world tournament would indicate to the player that his survival ⚾️ time was

less than half that predicted by Harrington’s miscalculation of M.

True M in Fast Poker

Tournaments

To really drill home ⚾️ the flaw in M—as Harrington defines it—let’s look at a

fast tournament structure. Let’s assume the exact same 3000 in ⚾️ chips, and the exact

same 50-100 blind level, but with the 20-minute blind levels we find in many small

buy-in ⚾️ tourneys. With this blind structure, the blinds will be one level higher each

time we go through them. How many ⚾️ rounds of play will our 3000 in chips survive,

assuming we play no pots? (Again, I’ll use the Caesars WSOP ⚾️ levels, as above, changing

only the blind length.)

150 + 300 + 550 + 1100 (4 rounds) = 1950

The next round ⚾️ the

blinds are 300-600 with a 75 ante, so the cost of a ten-handed round is 1650, and we

only ⚾️ have 1050 remaining. That means that with this faster tournament structure, our

True M at the start of that 50-100 ⚾️ blind level is actually about 4.6, a very far cry

from the 20 that Harrington would estimate, and quite far ⚾️ from the 9 rounds we would

survive in the 60-minute structure described above.

And, in a small buy-in tournament

with 15-minute ⚾️ blind levels—and these fast tournaments are very common in poker rooms

today—this same 3000 chip position starting at this same ⚾️ blind level would indicate a

True M of only 3.9.

True M in Slow Poker Tournaments

But what if you were playing ⚾️ in

theR$10K main event of the WSOP, where the blind levels last 100 minutes? In this

tournament, if you were ⚾️ at the 50-100 blind level with 3000 in chips, your True M would

be 11.4. (As a matter of fact, ⚾️ it has only been in recent years that the blind levels

of the main event of the WSOP have been ⚾️ reduced from their traditional 2-hour length.

With 2-hour blind levels, as Harrington would have played throughout most of the years

⚾️ he has played the main event, his True M starting with this chip position would be

12.6.)

Unfortunately, that’s still nowhere ⚾️ near the 20 rounds Harrington’s M gives

you.

True M Adjusts for Tournament Structure

Note that in each of these tournaments, 20

⚾️ M means something very different as a survival indicator. True M shows that the

survival equivalent of 3000 in chips ⚾️ at the same blind level can range from 3.9 rounds

(39 hands) to 12.6 (126 hands), depending solely on the ⚾️ length of the

blinds.

Furthermore, even within the same blind level of the same tournament, True M

can have different values, ⚾️ depending on how deep you are into that blind level. For

example, what if you have 3000 in chips but ⚾️ instead of being at the very start of that

50-100 blind level (assuming 60-minute levels), you are somewhere in the ⚾️ middle of it,

so that although the blinds are currently 50-100, the blinds will go up to the 100-200

level ⚾️ before you go through them three more times? Does this change your True M?

most certainly does. That True M ⚾️ of 9 in this tournament, as demonstrated above, only

pertains to your chip position at the 50-100 blind level if ⚾️ you will be going through

those 50-100 blinds three times before the next level. If you’ve already gone through

those ⚾️ blinds at that level one or more times, then your True M will not be 9, but will

range from ⚾️ 6.4 to 8.1, depending on how deep into the 50-100 blind level you are.

Most

important, if you are under the ⚾️ mistaken impression that at any point in the 50-100

blind level in any of the tournaments described above, 3000 in ⚾️ chips is sufficient to

go through 20 rounds of play (200 hands), you are way off the mark. What Harrington

⚾️ says “M tells you,” is not at all what M tells you. If you actually stopped and

calculated True M, ⚾️ as defined above, then True M would tell you what Harrington’s M

purports to tell you.

And if it really is ⚾️ important for you to know how many times you

can go through the blinds before you are blinded off, then ⚾️ why not at least figure out

the number accurately? M, as described in Harrington’s book, is simply woefully

inadequate at ⚾️ performing this function.

If Harrington had actually realized that his M

was not an accurate survival indicator, and he had stopped ⚾️ and calculated True M for a

variety of tournaments, would he still be advising you to employ the same starting ⚾️ hand

standards and playing strategies at a True M of 3.9 (with 39 hands before blind-off)

that you would be ⚾️ employing at a True M of 12.6 (with 126 hands before blind-off)?

he believes that a player with 20 M ⚾️ has 20 rounds of play to wait for a good hand

before he is blinded off (and again, 20 rounds ⚾️ at a ten-player table would be 200

hands), then his assessment of your likelihood of getting “…a better hand in ⚾️ a better

situation, with a reasonable amount of money left,” would be quite different than if he

realized that his ⚾️ True M was 9 (90 hands remaining till blind-off), or in a faster

blind structure, as low as 3.9 (only ⚾️ 39 hands remaining until blind-off).

Those

radically different blind-off times would drastically alter the frequencies of

occurrence of the premium starting ⚾️ hands, and aren’t the likelihood of getting those

hands what his M theory and strategy are based on?

A Blackjack Analogy

For ⚾️ blackjack

players—and I know a lot of my readers come from the world of blackjack card

counting—Harrington’s M might best ⚾️ be compared to the “running count.” If I am using a

traditional balanced card counting system at a casino blackjack ⚾️ table, and I make my

playing and betting decisions according to my running count, I will often be playing

incorrectly, ⚾️ because the structure of the game—the number of decks in play and the

number of cards that have already been ⚾️ dealt since the last shuffle—must be taken into

account in order for me to adjust my running count to a ⚾️ “true” count.

A +6 running

count in a single-deck game means something entirely different from a +6 running count

in a ⚾️ six-deck shoe game. And even within the same game, a +6 running count at the

beginning of the deck or ⚾️ shoe means something different from a +6 running count toward

the end of the deck or shoe.

Professional blackjack players adjust ⚾️ their running count

to the true count to estimate their advantage accurately and make their strategy

decisions accordingly. The unadjusted ⚾️ running count cannot do this with any accuracy.

Harrington’s M could be considered a kind of Running M, which must ⚾️ be adjusted to a

True M in order for it to have any validity as a survival gauge.

When Harrington’s

Running ⚾️ M Is Occasionally Correct

Harrington’s Running M can “accidentally” become

correct without a True M adjustment when a player is very ⚾️ short-stacked in a tournament

with lengthy blind levels. For example, if a player has an M of 4 or 5 ⚾️ in a tournament

with 2-hour blind levels, then in the early rounds of that blind level, since he could

expect ⚾️ to go through the same blind costs 4 or 5 times, Harrington’s unadjusted M would

be the same as True ⚾️ M.

This might also occur when the game is short-handed, since

players will be going through the blinds more frequently. (This ⚾️ same thing happens in

blackjack games where the running count equals the true count at specific points in the

deal. ⚾️ For example, if a blackjack player is using a count-per-deck adjustment in a

six-deck game, then when the dealer is ⚾️ down to the last deck in play, the running count

will equal the true count.)

In rare situations like these, where ⚾️ Running M equals True

M, Harrington’s “red zone” strategies may be correct—not because Harrington was correct

in his application of ⚾️ M, but because of the tournament structure and the player’s poor

chip position at that point.

In tournaments with 60-minute blind ⚾️ levels, this type of

“Running M = True M” situation could only occur at a full table when a player’s ⚾️ M is 3

or less. And in fast tournaments with 15 or 20-minute blind levels, Harrington’s M

could only equal ⚾️ True M when a player’s M = 1 or less.

Harrington’s yellow and orange

zone strategies, however, will always be pretty ⚾️ worthless, even in the slowest

tournaments, because there are no tournaments with blind levels that last long enough

to require ⚾️ no True M adjustments.

Why Harrington’s Strategies Can’t Be Said to Adjust

Automatically for True M

Some Harrington supporters may wish to ⚾️ make a case that Dan

Harrington made some kind of automatic adjustment for approximate True M in devising

his yellow ⚾️ and orange zone strategies. But in HOH II, he clearly states that M tells

you how many rounds of the ⚾️ table you will survive—period.

In order to select which

hands a player should play in these zones, based on the likelihood ⚾️ of better hands

occurring while the player still has a reasonable chip stack, it was necessary for

Harrington to specify ⚾️ some number of rounds in order to develop a table of the

frequencies of occurrence of the starting hands. His ⚾️ book tells us that he assumes an M

of 20 simply means 20 rounds remaining—which we know is wrong for ⚾️ all real-world

tournaments.

But for those who wish to make a case that Harrington made some kind of a

True M ⚾️ adjustment that he elected not to inform us about, my answer is that it’s

impossible that whatever adjustment he used ⚾️ would be even close to accurate for all

tournaments and blind structures. If, for example, he assumed 20 M meant ⚾️ a True M of

12, and he developed his starting-hand frequency charts with this assumption, then his

strategies would be ⚾️ fairly accurate for the slowest blind structures we find in major

events. But they would still be very wrong for ⚾️ the faster blind structures we find in

events with smaller buy-ins and in most online tournaments.

In HOH II, he does ⚾️ provide

quite a few sample hands from online tournaments, with no mention whatsoever of the

blind structures of these events, ⚾️ but 15-minute blind levels are less common online

than 5-, 8-, and 12-minute blind levels. Thus, we are forced to ⚾️ believe that what Mason

Malmuth claims is true: that Harrington considers his strategies correct for

tournaments of all speeds. So ⚾️ it is doubtful that he made any True M adjustments, even

for slower tournament structures. Simply put, Harrington is oblivious ⚾️ to the true

mathematics of M.

Simplifying True M for Real-Life Tournament Strategy

If all poker

tournaments had the same blind structure, ⚾️ then we could just memorize chart data that

would indicate True M with any chip stack at any point in ⚾️ any blind level.

Unfortunately, there are almost as many blind structures as there are

tournaments.

There are ways, however, that Harrington’s ⚾️ Running M could be adjusted to

an approximate True M without literally figuring out the exact cost of each blind ⚾️ level

at every point in the tournament. With 90-minute blind levels, after dividing your chip

stack by the cost of ⚾️ a round, simply divide your Running M by two, and you’ll have a

reasonable approximation of your True M.

With 60-minute ⚾️ blind levels, take about 40% of

the Running M. With 30-minute blind levels, divide the Running M by three. And ⚾️ with 15-

or 20-minute blind levels, divide the Running M by five. These will be far from perfect

adjustments, but ⚾️ they will be much closer to reality than Harrington’s unadjusted

Running M numbers.

Do Tournament Players Need to Know Their “True ⚾️ M”?

Am I suggesting

that poker tournament players should start estimating their True M, instead of the

Running M that Harrington ⚾️ proposes? No, because I disagree with Harrington’s emphasis

on survival and basing so much of your play on your cards. ⚾️ I just want to make it clear

that M, as defined and described by Harrington in HOH II, is wrong, ⚾️ a bad measure of

what it purports and aims to measure. It is based on an error in logic, in ⚾️ which a

crucial factor in the formula—tournament structure—is ignored (the same error that

David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth have made ⚾️ continually in their writings and analyses

of tournaments.)

Although it would be possible for a player to correct Harrington’s

mistake by ⚾️ estimating his True M at any point in a tournament, I don’t advise it.

Admittedly, it’s a pain in the ⚾️ ass trying to calculate True M exactly, not something

most players could do quickly and easily at the tables. But ⚾️ that’s not the reason I

think True M should be ignored.

The reason is related to the overarching difference

between Harrington’s ⚾️ strategies and mine, which I mentioned at the beginning of this

article. That is: It’s a grave error for tournament ⚾️ players to focus on how long they

can survive if they just sit and wait for premium cards. That’s not ⚾️ what tournaments

are about. It’s a matter of perspective. When you look at your stack size, you

shouldn’t be thinking, ⚾️ “How long can I survive?” but, “How much of a threat do I pose

to my opponents?”

The whole concept of ⚾️ M is geared to the player who is tight and

conservative, waiting for premium hands (or premium enough at that ⚾️ point). Harrington’s

strategy is overly focused on cards as the primary pot entering factor, as opposed to

entering pots based ⚾️ predominately (or purely) on position, chip stack, and

opponent(s).

In The Poker Tournament Formula, I suggest that players assess their chip

⚾️ position by considering their chip stacks as a simple multiple of the current big

blind. If you have 3000 in ⚾️ chips, and the big blind is 100, then you have 30 big

blinds. This number, 30, tells you nothing about ⚾️ how many rounds you can survive if you

don’t enter any pots. But frankly, that doesn’t matter. What matters in ⚾️ a tournament is

that you have sufficient chips to employ your full range of skills, and—just as

important—that you have ⚾️ sufficient chips to threaten your opponents with a raise, and

an all-in raise if that is what you need for ⚾️ the threat to be successful to win you the

pot.

Your ability to to be a threat is directly related to ⚾️ the health of your chip

stack in relation to the current betting level, which is most strongly influenced by

the ⚾️ size of the blinds. In my PTF strategy, tournaments are not so much about survival

as they are about stealing ⚾️ pots. If you’re going to depend on surviving until you get

premium cards to get you to the final table, ⚾️ you’re going to see very few final tables.

You must outplay your opponents with the cards you are dealt, not ⚾️ wait and hope for

cards that are superior to theirs.

I’m not suggesting that you ignore the size of the

preflop ⚾️ pot and focus all of your attention on the size of the big blind. You should

always total the chips ⚾️ in the pot preflop, but not because you want to know how long

you can survive if you sit there ⚾️ waiting for your miracle cards. You simply need to

know the size of the preflop pot so you can make ⚾️ your betting and playing decisions,

both pre- and post-flop, based on all of the factors in the current hand.

What other

⚾️ players, if any have entered the pot? Is this a pot you can steal if you don’t have a

viable ⚾️ hand? Is this pot worth the risk of an attempted steal? If you have a drawing

hand, do you have ⚾️ the odds to call, or are you giving an opponent the odds to call? Are

any of your opponent(s) pot-committed? ⚾️ Do you have sufficient chips to play a

speculative hand for this pot? There are dozens of reasons why you ⚾️ need to know the

size of a pot you are considering getting involved in, but M is not a factor ⚾️ in any of

these decisions.

So, again, although you will always be totaling the chips in the pot

in order to ⚾️ make betting and playing decisions, sitting there and estimating your

blind-off time by dividing your chip stack by the total ⚾️ chips in the preflop pot is an

exercise in futility. It has absolutely nothing to do with your actual chances ⚾️ of

survival. You shouldn’t even be thinking in terms of survival, but of

domination.

Harrington on Hold’em II versus The Poker ⚾️ Tournament Formula: A Sample

Situation

Let’s say the blinds are 100-200, and you have 4000 in chips. Harrington

would have you ⚾️ thinking that your M is 13 (yellow zone), and he advises: “…you have to

switch to smallball moves: get in, ⚾️ win the pot, but get out when you encounter

resistance.” (HOH II, p. 136)

In The Poker Tournament Formula basic strategy ⚾️ for fast

tournaments (PTF p. 158), I categorize this chip stack equal to 20 big blinds as “very

short,” and ⚾️ my advice is: “…you must face the fact that you are not all that far from

the exit door. But ⚾️ you still have enough chips to scare any player who does not have a

really big chip stack and/or a ⚾️ really strong hand. Two things are important when you

are this short on chips. One is that unless you have ⚾️ an all-in raising hand as defined

below, do not enter any pot unless you are the first in. And second, ⚾️ any bet when you

are this short will always be all-in.”

The fact is, you don’t have enough chips for

“smallball” ⚾️ when you’re this short on chips in a fast tournament, and one of the most

profitable moves you can make ⚾️ is picking on Harrington-type players who think it’s time

for smallball.

Harrington sees this yellow zone player as still having 13 ⚾️ rounds of

play (130 hands, which is a big overestimation resulting from his failure to adjust to

True M) to ⚾️ look for a pretty decent hand to get involved with. My thinking in a fast

tournament, by contrast, would be: ⚾️ “The blinds are now 100-200. By the time they get

around to me fifteen minutes from now, they will be ⚾️ 200-400. If I don’t make a move

before the blinds get around to me, and I have to go through ⚾️ those blinds, my 4000 will

become 3400, and the chip position I’m in right now, which is having a stack ⚾️ equal to

20 times the big blind, will be reduced to a stack of only 8.5 times the big blind.

⚾️ Right now, my chip stack is scary. Ten to fifteen minutes from now (in 7-8 hands), any

legitimate hand will ⚾️ call me down.”

So, my advice to players this short on chips in a

fast tournament is to raise all-in with ⚾️ any two cards from any late position seat in an

unopened pot. My raising hands from earlier positions include all ⚾️ pairs higher than 66,

and pretty much any two high cards. And my advice with these hands is to raise ⚾️ or

reraise all-in, including calling any all-ins. You need a double-up so badly here that

you simply must take big ⚾️ risks. As per The Poker Tournament Formula (p. 159): “When

you’re this short on chips you must take risks, because ⚾️ the risk of tournament death is

greater if you don’t play than if you do.”

There is also a side effect ⚾️ of using a loose

aggressive strategy when you have enough chips to hurt your opponents, and that is that

you ⚾️ build an image of a player who is not to be messed with, and that is always the

preferred image ⚾️ to have in any no-limit hold’em tournament. But while Harrington sees

this player surviving for another 13 rounds of play, ⚾️ the reality is that he will

survive fewer than 4 more rounds in a fast tournament, and within two rounds ⚾️ he will be

so short-stacked that he will be unable to scare anybody out of a pot, and even a

⚾️ double-up will not get him anywhere near a competitive chip stack.

The Good News for

Poker Tournament Players

The good news for ⚾️ poker tournament players is that

Harrington’s books have become so popular, and his M theory so widely accepted as valid

⚾️ by many players and “experts” alike, that today’s NLH tournaments are overrun with his

disciples playing the same tight, conservative ⚾️ style through the early green zone blind

levels, then predictably entering pots with more marginal hands as their M

diminishes—which ⚾️ their early tight play almost always guarantees. And, though many of

the top players know that looser, more aggressive play ⚾️ is what’s getting them to the

final tables, I doubt that Harrington’s misguided advice will be abandoned by the

masses ⚾️ any time soon.

In a recent issue of Card Player magazine (March 28, 2007),

columnist Steve Zolotow reviewed The Poker Tournament ⚾️ Formula, stating: “Snyder

originates a complicated formula for determining the speed of a tournament, which he

calls the patience factor. ⚾️ Dan Harrington’s discussion of M and my columns on CPR cover

this same material, but much more accurately. Your strategy ⚾️ should be based not upon

the speed of the tournament as a whole, but on your current chip position in ⚾️ relation

to current blinds. If your M (the number of rounds you can survive without playing a

hand) is 20, ⚾️ you should base your strategy primarily on that fact. Whether the blinds

will double and reduce your M to 10 ⚾️ in 15 minutes or four hours should not have much

influence on your strategic decisions.”

Zolotow’s “CPR” articles were simply a ⚾️ couple

of columns he wrote last year in which he did nothing but explain Harrington’s M

theory, as if it ⚾️ were 100% correct. He added nothing to the theory of M, and is clearly

as ignorant of the math as ⚾️ Harrington is.

So money-making opportunities in poker

tournaments continue to abound.

In any case, I want to thank SlackerInc for posting a

⚾️ question on our poker discussion forum, in which he pointed out many of the key

differences between Harrington’s short-stack strategies ⚾️ and those in The Poker

Tournament Formula. He wanted to know why our pot-entering strategies were so far

apart.

The answer ⚾️ is that the strategies in my book are specifically identified as

strategies for fast tournaments of a specific speed, so ⚾️ my assumptions, based on a

player’s current chip stack, would usually be that the player is about five times more

⚾️ desperate than Harrington would see him (his Running M of 20 being roughly equivalent

to my True M of about ⚾️ 4). ♠

próxima:cassino online neymar

anterior:sportsbet 55

onabet sd solution 15 ml