Jump to content

"effective M" For Short Tables: Yea Or Nay?


Recommended Posts

I saw in another thread that a couple people mentioned their disagreement with the idea of "effective M". This touched a chord with me because I have been wrestling with this one myself.Harrington defines M (other than mathematically) as "how long your stack will last until it's blinded away" (HoH v2, p. 277). By this definition, it's absolutely correct to adjust M when the number of players decrease, because you get fewer hands per orbit. But another way to look at M, especially when it is below ten or especially below 7, is "if I push preflop, what's the ratio of reward (no one calls and I win the blinds, or someone calls and I win a big pot) to risk (the chance that someone acting behind me has a monster hand and will call and knock me out of the tournament)?" By this measure, "effective M" seems shakier. If you're playing five-handed, with a stack of $13,000, and you've got blinds of $500/250 with $50 antes, your "effective M" would be 6.5. But stealing the blinds and antes only increases your stack by less than eight percent, half what it would increase given the same M at a full table. That is a questionable risk/reward ratio (though maybe you have greater fold equity here, plus a lesser chance of someone else holding a premium hand at the short table, balancing things out?)Surely, not adjusting M at all could mean trouble. For example, if you had an M of 7 at a full table, and you got say A-6os in early position, you might want to fold and wait for a better spot to make your move. But with the same stack and same starting pot at a short table, you might lose a lot of your stack by the next time you get a hand even that good, at which point even doubling up won't get you out of the danger zone.Does perhaps the effective M apply to letting you know when you're out of the Green Zone and into the Yellow, but not so much to determining when it's appropriate to go into push/fold mode? Should we maybe compromise and consider our effective M to be the average of the unadjusted M and the adjusted one? Do we need to create yet another number to go along with M and Q? Would love to hear your thoughts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts before the good players jump in: it is important to recognize the concept of effective M, but I don't think there is a simple linear "if A then B" way to deal with it. Obviously, if your M is 6, and you are three handed, your effective M is tiny, so theoretically you should push with any two cards. But what if the other two people have stacks half your size? They are even more desparate, so they need a double-up even more. Plus, it is likely one of them will go out soon. So are you pushing with that 83o when you have first in vig? I say no.Basically, your M, your effective M, the relative stack sizes of everyone at the table, the payout structure, your opponent's understanding of endgame play, etc, etc, all become part of the decision at that point of whether to enter a pot. I think if you weight those factors properly, effective M is the least of your worries. Yes, you need to know how many hands you have left, but your opponents probably have similar issues.But when your M is that low, one thing for sure: it's push or fold. Deciding which hands fall into which category is the trick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw in another thread that a couple people mentioned their disagreement with the idea of "effective M". This touched a chord with me because I have been wrestling with this one myself.Harrington defines M (other than mathematically) as "how long your stack will last until it's blinded away" (HoH v2, p. 277). By this definition, it's absolutely correct to adjust M when the number of players decrease, because you get fewer hands per orbit. But another way to look at M, especially when it is below ten or especially below 7, is "if I push preflop, what's the ratio of reward (no one calls and I win the blinds, or someone calls and I win a big pot) to risk (the chance that someone acting behind me has a monster hand and will call and knock me out of the tournament)?" By this measure, "effective M" seems shakier. If you're playing five-handed, with a stack of $13,000, and you've got blinds of $500/250 with $50 antes, your "effective M" would be 6.5. But stealing the blinds and antes only increases your stack by less than eight percent, half what it would increase given the same M at a full table. That is a questionable risk/reward ratio (though maybe you have greater fold equity here, plus a lesser chance of someone else holding a premium hand at the short table, balancing things out?)Surely, not adjusting M at all could mean trouble. For example, if you had an M of 7 at a full table, and you got say A-6os in early position, you might want to fold and wait for a better spot to make your move. But with the same stack and same starting pot at a short table, you might lose a lot of your stack by the next time you get a hand even that good, at which point even doubling up won't get you out of the danger zone.Does perhaps the effective M apply to letting you know when you're out of the Green Zone and into the Yellow, but not so much to determining when it's appropriate to go into push/fold mode? Should we maybe compromise and consider our effective M to be the average of the unadjusted M and the adjusted one? Do we need to create yet another number to go along with M and Q? Would love to hear your thoughts.
Youve left out a factor in your "other way to look at it" the addition of which reconciles the more complete risk reward concept with your second paragraph. You even pick it up in your third paragraph, but not explicitly. That factor is the frequency of the occurrence of a a given hand or better occuring. Using your A6o example, that is a top 19.5% hand. Thus you can expect to get that hand or better on average once every 5 hands. When you are at a full table that gives you approx 2 chances an orbit, so if youve just payed your blinds, youve got a couple of shots at a better hand. If there are only 5 at the table, there is a reasonable chance you wont get ANY better hands before our M drops again, and makes it more inviting for others to call you.Ie "risk/reward" ratio doesnt only include the snapshot of the current hand, it includes the risk of being forced to play a worse hand. The shorter the table the higher the risk for passing up this hand.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But what if the other two people have stacks half your size? They are even more desparate, so they need a double-up even more. Plus, it is likely one of them will go out soon. So are you pushing with that 83o when you have first in vig? I say no.
That second factor (relative stack size) would be Q, the "weak force", so Action Dan does account for this.
But when your M is that low, one thing for sure: it's push or fold. Deciding which hands fall into which category is the trick.
Agreed. But what if you're playing three handed, and your M is 12, making your effective M less than 4? You generally wouldn't say "push or fold only" with an M of 12, but you would with an M of 4. This is the crux of the problem as I see it.And as long as you mentioned three-handed play, I've also tried to wrap my mind around the fact that Harrington says to drop effective M when you get heads-up and go back to regular M. So this would mean your M essentially triples when the third-place player gets knocked out! Doesn't that seem a little odd somehow? I get the sense that there are little seams in this paradigm in places like this where the formula doesn't quite add up.
Link to post
Share on other sites
And as long as you mentioned three-handed play, I've also tried to wrap my mind around the fact that Harrington says to drop effective M when you get heads-up and go back to regular M. So this would mean your M essentially triples when the third-place player gets knocked out! Doesn't that seem a little odd somehow? I get the sense that there are little seams in this paradigm in places like this where the formula doesn't quite add up.
There is no need to adjust M when it is heads up because you are already playing every hand, and your calling/pushing range is clearly defined mathematically.You seem to think that there is non-exploitable strategy associated with M...a "paradigm"...when 3 handed or more. There isn't. M's are a convenient parameter to look at to identify situations where you do or dont generally have the mathematcial ability to make certain plays, but reading the characteristics of your opponents is still critical.
Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no need to adjust M when it is heads up because you are already playing every hand, and your calling/pushing range is clearly defined mathematically.
I agree with that. Where I see the "seam" is not in the heads-up advice, but in the three-handed effective M. You're not in every hand, but pretty close to it. Should your effective M really be only one third of what it would be with one fewer player? Obviously they should be different, but that much different?
You seem to think that there is non-exploitable strategy associated with M...a "paradigm"...when 3 handed or more. There isn't. M's are a convenient parameter to look at to identify situations where you do or dont generally have the mathematcial ability to make certain plays, but reading the characteristics of your opponents is still critical.
I guess I took the advice on p. 140 of HoH v2 pretty literally, as a straightforward paradigm. Unless I've been reading it wrong, it seems to me he is saying that if no one has entered the pot yet, and you are in the Red Zone, you should push with any pair, with two face cards, and even with suited connectors. He goes further and says that if you are in late position and everyone has folded to you, you should push "with all but the very worst hands". He also says that there is "rarely" any reason to do anything but push (and doesn't define the "rare" situation, though perhaps it has to do with the bubble).
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with that. Where I see the "seam" is not in the heads-up advice, but in the three-handed effective M. You're not in every hand, but pretty close to it. Should your effective M really be only one third of what it would be with one fewer player? Obviously they should be different, but that much different?I guess I took the advice on p. 140 of HoH v2 pretty literally, as a straightforward paradigm. Unless I've been reading it wrong, it seems to me he is saying that if no one has entered the pot yet, and you are in the Red Zone, you should push with any pair, with two face cards, and even with suited connectors. He goes further and says that if you are in late position and everyone has folded to you, you should push "with all but the very worst hands". He also says that there is "rarely" any reason to do anything but push (and doesn't define the "rare" situation, though perhaps it has to do with the bubble).
Let me put it differently. "effective M" is a convenient shorthand way to focus on strategies defined based on your stack only, without reference to the other stacks. If you are going to look at strategies related to the stacks of all n hands at the table, it doesnt matter whether you get n effective Ms, or n Ms, or mutiply all of the Ms by 10..what is relevant is their relationship to each other, so you may as well stick with M.When you get to HU, strategy for both hands is defined solely by the short stack M, ...you are looking at all the relevant stacks just by looking at the short stack. So just as in the multiplayer case where you are looking at all relevant hands there is no need to adjsut M, in the 2 handed case you are looking at all relevant hands just by looking at the shortstack, so there is no need to adjust M.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Think about how differently you play 3 handed vs HU.
Though 3-handed can often turn into essentially the same as HU, if the button folds.And maybe I'm being dense, but while I see that the short stack's M is most important HU, I'm not sure why the other player's M is not important, yet all three players' M is important three-handed. Can you elabourate?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Though 3-handed can often turn into essentially the same as HU, if the button folds.And maybe I'm being dense, but while I see that the short stack's M is most important HU, I'm not sure why the other player's M is not important, yet all three players' M is important three-handed. Can you elabourate?
See my edits while you responded, that might help.For an English explanation, or at least demonstration why HU strategy is defined by the short stack only, google "cardplayer SAGE". SAGE is an approximation to the nonexploitable HU strategy, and you will see it is defined soley in terms of the short stack. More detail can be found if you buy sitngo power tools, the nonexploitable strategy tutorial is not free.Or think about it this way. When you are HU, you are playing for one prize...the difference between first place and second place. So if youre going all in, tournament equity is exactly the same as hand equity. the short stack can only double up, ie he can win or lose M only. the big stack also can win or lose M only. So all hand equity calculations (which directly correspond to tournament equity calculations) are based on one number only...the short stack M.When you move up to three handed, take two extreme situations. Your effective M is .6 in both. Your tournament equity is vastly different if the other two effective Ms are .2 and 1.2, or .6 and .6. (And to carry it one step further, it really doesnt matter if you look at those effective Ms or the"raw Ms" of 2, .666 and 4, or 2, 2 and 2, as long as youre looking at all 3 hands. But if you are going to look at your hand only there is a big difference when your M is 2 and you are on the button 10 handed, or on the button 3 handed...in one case youve got 8 more hands to look at for free, in the other you have no more hands to look at for free..so your strategies are very different.)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...