Man, you're preaching to the converted here, I agree with you 100%. But go check the MTT strategy forums and count the threads where the metric is #BBs vs the threads where it's M. Either I've picked a freaky sample or indeed BBs are what most people refer to these days.

Here's someone who hasn't mastered this ability. He tries to hide his peeks in blinks and nods, but he's not fooling anyone.

Kimberly and Sexton

I think the size of the Big Blind is more accessible of a number than the starting size of the pot. The BB size is always prominently shown on the of the window you're playing on while the starting pot, is only shown at the start of a hand (or one has to do a quick mental calculation). It's not a lot of work, but it's some, and the easy/lazy way is to base decisions off the BB.

Also, I've noticed that a lot of HH converters don't bother with antes or the starting pot size, which makes using the starting pot in calculations slightly harder.

Harrington is a master of his time. 15 years ago

This is kind of splitting hairs. In later stages of tournaments, where one has to play a lot of shove-it-in poker, a "10BBs remaining" situation is approximately equal to a "5M" situation. I think that M is a slightly better indicator, and stack-to-pot considerations are still valid, of course.

However, if every poker authority/commentator/writer/whatever referred exclusively to "BBs remaining" rather than "M", they would still be referencing the same basic concept. Different terminology, differently scaled ruler--no big deal..

Harrington ownz

I think there's more than that, to the extent that another 2+2er recently was telling me of how the concept of M is obsolete and the metric for the knowledgeable player is the #BB which in the presence of antes is refined into the "effective big blind", equal to 2/3 of the starting pot. Seems like efforts are being made to refine that measure, which wouldn't be the case if it was just an arithmetic convenience.

The girl giving the interview needs to be hit in the face.

that girl on the interview is so hot, she is my favorite, forget about dan.....

Dan looks like a mummy in the two CP videos. He doesn't change that impression even after he starts speaking.

Just noticed this while watching the other videos from this tourney. David (the Dragon) Pham is doing his interview and gets a little too friendly with the hottie interviewing him:

http://www.cardplayer.com/tournaments/videos/13271

(Around the 3:30 mark)

haha...God i love Harringtons gangsta fly hat
Somebody prolly told him to bend it a little cause I remember when it was brand new and straight pimpin

Often women with a real nice rack (especially in the pre-plastic surgery days) are so used to guys staring down at them that they find guys who look them in the eye when they meet/speak to be very attractive (other things held equal).

Don't mean to imply Dan is likely to score with the interviewer since he didn't meet her eyes either.

~ Rick

Ha! They ridicule his books because they want to plug their own crap. In the WWE-culture that is big time tournament poker, guys like Harrington are overlooked and dismissed rather easily.

1st in the WSOP ME in 1995 -- 3rd in the WSOP ME in 2003 -- 4th in the WSOP ME in 2004 -- 2nd in the WPT Doyle Brunson WPT N. America Championship in 2005 -- and his 1st in LA.

Not included is a fairly steady list of cashes for a guy who focuses a great deal of his time on other business interests besides poker and does not play as much (or hog the camera with childish antics) as the flavors of the month the Internet seems to fawn all over.

Obsolete? I'm sure Dan hopes more like you will perpetuate this myth.