In the excerpt in 2+2 mag he can't have AQs in first example cause Qs turn card. Just starting book.

Mason,

How many hand examples are in the book?

A lot.

Mason

Because live poker and online poker are two completely different games. Yes they are both poker but what might be standard online would be terrible live.

Has anyone made it to the "All-In" chapter yet? I'm very confused with the relationship Harrington has when it comes to M equaling big blinds. He states that if you have an M of say 6 and there are antes involved, that's equivalent to 15bb. If there are no antes involved, an M of 6 is equal to 9bb. So you really can't just go by just the bb....cause you
Don't really know if that means you've got and M of 15 or just 9. Big difference. And another thing, the tables he gives for push fold assume there are antes, most if the tournies I play don't have antes....so these charts are useless to me?

Has anyone made it to the "All-In" chapter yet? I'm very confused with Harrington's relationship of M to the big blinds. He states that if you have an M of say 6 and there are antes involved, that's equivalent to 15bb. If there are no antes involved, an M of 6 is equal to 9bb. So if you choose to figure out your tournament life by the amount of big blinds left, you really can't just go by the bb's...cause 15bb could mean 12-13M or just 6M. Big difference. And another thing, the tables he gives for push fold assume there are antes, most of the tournaments I play don't have antes....so these charts are useless to me? There are no tables showing ranges for when you have an M that doesn't involve antes.

See my post. Please post any other errors you notice.

In the "All-In" chapter....Harrington gives some suggestions as to what to do with various "M" sizes and next to the "M" he tells you how that relates in big blinds....in case there are players who like to keep track of their chip strength using big blinds instead of M. The problem is, all these numbers are with the assumption that antes are in play, and the numbers are different when antes are not in play. Of coarse the tournaments I play in don't have antes usually. They are fast 20min blinds maybe take 5 hours to complete. For example Harrington says: With antes in play an M of 6 is equal to 12.5bb. If there are no antes in play an M of 6 is equal to 9bb. My issue is with no antes in play these charts don't pertain to me, and there are no "M equivalent to big blind" charts or advice for those "no ante" tourneys. Am I understanding this correctly?

The M can also be calculated without antes (just add up the blinds) to get your M.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-ratio

Harrington did mention that....if there are no antes and you want to know what the equivalent of your M to big blinds is, you can simply multiply your M by 1.5 and that gives you your big blind equivalent. Problem is he doesn't give you pushing advice for THESE numbers. Just when your M involves antes.

I would have thought you just do the same things suggested with the recalculated M?

M6 with antes = M6 without antes

Eventhough BB stack sizes if either are different.

You're probably right Lucky....might be easier to just go with "M" and not measure chip strength by big blinds left. Will make things easier that way and following Harrington's short stack charts and advice easier to apply.

I think what most people want to know is whether or not this book can, or should "replace" his seminal work - the 3 volume set. At least this is the yardstick that I am using as I read this book. I have only completed Part One. I expect the rest of it to have more meat.

Just simply calculate your M without antes and go from there.

Take the total chips in the middle of the pot (in your case the sb/bb) and divide them by the number of players at the table. This gives you your M. I don't see the difference in if there are antes or not as long as you have your M. M is just the total number of chips it costs you to play each round.

Isn't "M" your stack divided by the (big blind + small blind +antes if any)?

I am about halfway through it and it mostly seems to apply to really deep stacked situations (100+ BBs). I have played several WSOP events and a lot of smaller tourneys and I probaby haven't had more than 100 BBs (beyond the first couple levels) for more than a few levels in my life.

For the tourneys that I play, and probably most of us here, I'm most interested in how to handle 10-30 BB situations. I always have considered maybe 50 BBs to be deep enough for deep to where you play like you would a cash game.

Of course, I'm only halfway through. Maybe all that's coming.

(Also, the whole process for downloading to an iPad seems overly complicated for 2014.)

Sorry...I said this wrong.

Yes...So if you have a 12k stack and levels are 200/400 you would have an M of 20. If you were to have 25 antes as well at a 10 handed table you would have an M of roughly 14.

200 + 400 + 250 = 850 12k/850 = 14.1

I just woke up so I hope this is right this time

Well, isn't the whole point of using M instead of BB the fact that you don't need to worry wether antes are in play or not?
The M you have at a single point in time is defined by the number of orbits you will survive until the blinds (and eventually antes) kill your whole stack.
The "traditional" way of defining your stack depth based on the number of BBs is flawed because sometimes there will be antes and sometimes not, and with antes in play, the pressure applied to your stack is significantly higher (as illustrated in your example of M calculation - depending on antes, your "life expectancy" will be the same with 9 BBs or 15 BBs, which is 6 orbits). With M, you just know how much time you have until you get blinded out.
So pushing ranges should indeed be based on M, which is the real pressure applied by blinds (and eventual antes). It doesn't matter if antes are involved or not, it doesn't matter how many big blinds you have, the M is what counts. The only difference (as far as I see it) is the odds that the SB or BB will have to call your push, which might be a little worse when antes are in play. That's because the amount of chips they already put in the pot is smaller compared to when no antes are in play. But in this case, you only need to adjust slightly.

That looks much better FishTaco....you had me confused there for a minute.

Thanks for totally putting that into perspective for me Scheier...I was WAY over thinking this and making it much more complicated than it really is. Thanks for kinda validating what I was already thinking.

Just bought the book and got past chapter one quickly - BTW, any questions regarding chapter one are completely covered in HOH 1 & 2. (including how to calc. M!)

Thus far, most of the examples are for live, deep, big buy-in events. Don't know if that will hold for the whole book but I believe Dan is more of a live MTTer than online.

So much this. Not a single rave review? Ugh.

I have read that's it's better if you do the Kindle version first, because when you adapt Kindle to the paper version, it's harder to make things like graphs and equations work. For example, when you change the font size on a Kindle, the equations often don't change size along with the text.

I decided a long time ago to only use M. Even online SNGs have antes now, so IMO it doesn't really make sense to do it any other way. It eliminates a lot of confusion.

I totally agree Poker Clif....seems much easier to just go by the "M." Eliminates some confusion if you're trying to incorporate both the "M" and the big blind plus the "M" gives a true sense of just how desperate or ok you're really doing.