I have read HoH recently and he talks a about M "blinds divided by stack" and reading into another topic about Harrington's WPT win someone mentioned

"I'm not surprised. Most of the tournament hotshots ridicule his books and dismiss his play as "weak-tight". Just look at how obsolete, in the view of some, the whole concept of M has become."


I am just wondering what is the thinking behind M being now obsolete. Thanks.

I'm just a noob, but, the idea of M being obsolete or irrelevant is preposterous. M, which is actually stack divided by the sum of blinds and 1 round of antes, is the most accurate measure of how much "play" is available to you and your opponents. In my opinion, it is the most crucial variable in any poker situation for determining the level of aggression or patience you can allow yourself to employ. It will never be obsolete any more than pot odds, or the fundamental theory of poker will become obsolete.

Not being able to see the context of the quote you provide, I can only assume that the speaker was perhaps referring to "red zone" inflection point play, where when your M falls below 5, your options become limited to push or fold. Perhaps that strategy is no longer as effective as it once was because it does not carry with it the fold equity it once did, now that the tactic has become part of conventional wisdom.

In the forward section of the Full Tilt Tournament Guide the editor mentions that the Full Tilt pros thought very highly of Harrington and his books.

I agree, I can't understand why M would ever become obsolete in tournament play, its a basic and fundamental tool which I assumed up to now everyone used... even without having ever read harrington

M is the most relevant and good concept in the book for tournament play.

M is still one of the most important concepts in Poker and always will be regardless of how people play. However, with Sit ,n, Goes being very popular and the blinds moving so fast the average stack has an M of less than 10 late in a tournament so there is less need to shove money in with J-8 suited for first in vigorish.

Keep in mind this was from NVG. 'Nuff said.

If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me. I have no clue why anyone would consider this concept obsolete (though I do think it's a little less original than some people think it is).

As basic tournie concept of course its not obsolete but,Harringtons colour zones probably are.
Harringtons books were written from the viewpoint of a B&M slow structure tourny player.Online tournies are almost all super fast structures when compared to the tournies Harrington uses as his examples in the books,so the blinds come round far quicker often increasing every orbit,so you need to be pushing far earlier than his zone concept states.

Agree.
but there are not a fault of HOH, is the king of MTT that we play online.
There are NOT 1 hour blind levels in any site ( at least low/mid stakes)
That remind me when Snyder explain their "formula" for fast tournes, and then mason replys suporting "M", i have not link here, buy you can search it. Very good material on the original topic.

I own HoH 1, i never really read it, just didnt like it; but whilst i completely hate the term 'M', what it represents is one of the most key factors of play in tournament poker and that is the value of your stack relative to the cost of an orbit.

I don't quite agree with this. I play in many online tourneys with 12 or 15 minute levels. Given the number of hands dealt per hour online, this translates to about 30-45 minute levels live. And even better, most sites now have "super stack" tourneys which often have at least 200BB to start.

The concept of your stack size related to the cost of an orbit will never be obsolete. That's nonsense.

However, it may be pointed out that deciding just how desparate you are can vary from situation to situation. Here, Arnold Snyder explains about his view of M: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...egy_True_M.htm

I find Snyder to be a slightly too desparate too early for my taste and a tad too aggressive (just read his book). My play falls somewhere between Harrington and Snyder and does depend quite a bit on the tourney structure but also how the others are playing.

I also believe Harrington is criticized more by the younger players of today who feel that loose/super aggressive is the best way to play in today's game (perhaps a macho/ego sort of thing?). In other words, I find a lot of it to be the younger set giving jabs at the tight old fogies who seem to never be in a pot.

Here was Snyder's view of M before we pointed out a few flaws in his book. It's a direct quote from an email Snyder wrote to me dated July 5, 2006. And for everyone else this has been posted before.

MM

P.158 Harrington on hold-em ..playing styles in the Endgame.
3/4 th of the way down the page

" Just like there are no atheists in foxholes." What.???

There are atheists in foxholes all over the world at this very minutes. I am sick of all the christian slander and misrepresentation of the contributions of atheists'.
It really hurt me that somone I admired as a great poker player would disrespect a group of americans who have and do give their lives fighting for this country everyday.
Dan...I feel betrayed that I contributed to your income by buying your books.

Atheists are the new minority, we aren't going to be slandered and we are not going to make believe that there is anything praise worthy in believeing in talking snakes or a sun that goes backward in the sky.

Yes, atheists get a lot of poor treatment, but I'd take Harrington's cliche with a grain of salt.

Also, you're not understanding the meaning of the adage. It means that once you get into a foxhole, you can't believe in the absence of a God--the fear of death scares a belief into you. I find that idea insulting and stupid, but again, apart from his knowledge of poker, I don't see Harrington as one of the world's great thinkers.