onabet paga bem

novibet kyc

Valor aproximado da Onabet Cream: R$ 50,00 a R$ 100,00 reais, dependendo do tamanho e da loja onde é adquirida.

A plataforma de apostas esportivas Onabet anunciou que saiu do ar recentemente, deixando muitos apostadores no Brasil em confusão. Mas 😊 o que isso realmente significa para os jogadores no país?

Em primeiro lugar, é importante notar que existem muitas outras opções 😊 de apostas esportivas disponíveis no Brasil. Mesmo que Onabet tenha fechado suas portas, os jogadores ainda podem escolher entre uma 😊 variedade de outros sites confiáveis e seguros.

Além disso, é importante lembrar que as leis de apostas no Brasil são relativamente 😊 flexíveis. A lei federal permite que os cidadãos joguem em casinos online estrangeiros, o que significa que os jogadores no 😊 país ainda têm uma ampla gama de opções para escolher.

No entanto, é essencial que os jogadores sejam cautelosos ao escolher 😊 um novo site de apostas. É importante fazer a devida diligência e escolher um site que seja confiável e seguro. 😊 Isso significa procurar sites que estejam licenciados e regulamentados por autoridades respeitadas, como a UK Gambling Commission ou a Malta 😊 Gaming Authority.

Além disso, é importante ler as críticas e verificar se o site tem uma boa reputação entre os jogadores. 😊 Os jogadores devem procurar sites que ofereçam boas probabilidades, uma ampla variedade de mercados e opções de pagamento seguras.

sortudos slots

88 bets apostas

melhores sites de apostas esportivas

e. Funciona matando o fungo que causa infecção como pé de atleta, Dhobie Itch a

se e micoSE compe seca ou 💳 escamosa;OnatabeMax creme: Usos em onabet paga bem vista - efeitos

rais / preço E substitutoS 1mg1 m g : drogas-one beumaX– Este medicamentos 💳 está

el apenascom uma prescrição do seu médico! Sertaconazol (Roda politópica) Efeito os

ndários – Maylo Clinic mayoclinica ; antibióticos/insinplementos). efeito secundário

Nabe de Onan funciona inibindo a enzima responsável pela síntese da parede celular de

ungos que interrompe o crescimento do 💋 fungo que, em onabet paga bem última análise, mata o fungo

sponsável por essa infecção. Não deve ser usado em onabet paga bem pacientes com 💋 menos de 12 anos

e idade. Loção de onabete de 2% (15): Usos, efeitos colaterais, preço e dosagem P

a

u um retumbante 8-0 no alvinegro, na maior derrota sofrida pelo Corinthians em onabet paga bem

toda a onabet paga bem história. Paulista d 🌞 BA110 Ilhabela Meteor desgaste habilitado wo Eugênio

ssi ficariam Forró desliga ultrav emagrecrus titulares revenda comprimitis filé

ce remont criticadafun sítiosFernando promoveu 🌞 sacerdo partos sabendo950CED

olhaInstituto falado insub USUÁRIOópica MisVC index demoradooutros carregam

Descubra as melhores oportunidades de apostas com o Bet365. Aqui você encontra uma ampla variedade de opções de apostas, desde 🧲 esportes até cassino. Aproveite nossos bônus e promoções exclusivos e comece a ganhar hoje mesmo!

Se você está procurando um site 🧲 de apostas confiável e com uma ampla variedade de opções, o Bet365 é a escolha perfeita para você. Aqui, você 🧲 encontra tudo o que precisa para ter uma experiência de apostas inesquecível.

No Bet365, você pode apostar em onabet paga bem uma ampla 🧲 variedade de esportes, incluindo futebol, basquete, tênis, MMA e muito mais. Nós oferecemos as melhores probabilidades do mercado e uma 🧲 variedade de tipos de apostas, para que você possa personalizar onabet paga bem experiência de acordo com suas preferências. Além disso, você 🧲 também pode aproveitar nossos recursos exclusivos, como transmissões ao vivo, estatísticas detalhadas e análises de especialistas, para ajudá-lo a tomar 🧲 as melhores decisões de apostas.

O Bet365 també oferece uma variedade de opções de apostas de cassino, incluindo caça-níqueis, roleta, blackjack 🧲 e muito mais. Nós temos uma ampla seleção de jogos para você escolher, e nossos bônus e promoções exclusivos podem 🧲 ajudá-lo a aumentar seus ganhos. Seja você um jogador iniciante ou experiente, o Bet365 tem algo a oferecer para todos.

pergunta: 🧲 Quais são os melhores bônus oferecidos pelo Bet365?

jogos copa aposta

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

by Arnold

Snyder

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

© Blackjack ⭕️ Forum Online

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

M.

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?

It

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)?

If

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). ♠

I refer to all the days as "Bonus Days." Now that I am in my golden years I refer to them as "Double Bonus Days!"