M · Rogers

This morning I put it together in a grand unification theory: This one may need a little refinement. However, I'll be shocked if you don't immediately smack your head and say wow, this is no ordinary Box o Rocks.

We all live and breathe Harrington's M. Snyder calls us all idiots and we bristle. Now, Box o Rocks is on the scene and he's worked thru the suffering of these conflicting views. I can confidently say that all of my tournament mistakes this last trip resulted from an incorrect application of M. Here's the good news, and not much of a shock: Dan Harrington's M is correct and valid for all situations. There are modifications for figuring M and Dan writes about M for short handed tables. I will talk about M for impending level changes, and this is the key.

I will say that I feel Snyder's 'bullet/ammunition' theory of chip value is probably a better analogy than Sklansky's 'each chip won is worth less', but I need to reconsider both theories further before I address the issue of chip values.

M is a number that roughly represents the number of rounds you can survive before you go broke. Simply, M is your stack divided by the sum of blinds and antes. We know that M must be recalculated every time the level advances. I suspect that most of us have even gone to the next step of determining our M based on an impending level change. But this modification is not enough.

M for number of rounds before you're broke is fine and usually valid for hour long rounds that are present in higher dollar value tournaments. If there's 10 minutes remaining of an hour long level, and the blinds have just past, most people will refigure M base on the next level values. You probably see where I'm going with this, don't you?

Consider the following common situation: Levels are 15 minutes, but antes have not started yet. The blinds double from here on with aggressive antes. You fold 72off in early middle position. 3 tables remain, and you check your M at 13. You study a fellow who's called all-in and you eventually call time on a third potential caller. The third caller does call with 99, and the original AI shows KK. Your read on the first caller was correct: He was weak, but this is ridiculous: J♥6♥? The board shows 6 7 4 7 6, and two people are eliminated. As J♥6♥ sheepishly rakes the pot, you correctly ignore the fact that you would have eliminated all 3 opponents with great chip position if only you were temporarily gifted with an IQ of 57. Now you fold K♣3♣ UTG on a table with 6 other fairly timid opponents. The buzzer sounds for the next level as the BB shows a walk with T♦2♠. You call for the floor, but he refuses to balance the tables since the opponents are dropping very fast.

On the next orbit, UTG, you fold 92off, affectionately nicknamed the "s#!+ milkshake" by a fellow named William. Finally, the tables combine to 2. The buzzer sounds again for a short break, and you lose the chip race. No problem, it's only a single ante. When you return from break, you see a much shorter stack. You recount your M at 2.5. How did this happen? The dealer tells you he colored up your chips. You think for a moment, and realize you weren't robbed. You post your blind, you see A♠, and push in without a glance at your 2nd hole card. Your opponent flops a boat, board K2K. You rap your bare patch of felt, smile, and congratulate the table. You head to the counter to queue for a juicy cash game, and consider what you might have done to improve your play; did you miss a steal opportunity or misread strength when your opponent made a move? What is it that the pros know, that you don't? As you're seated, you see your old pal J♥6♥ has made the money. Good for him. Sure, this is J♥6♥'s birthday, but this is ridiculous. Hopefully he'll take his chances over here at the cash game.

Do you see it yet? You should have figured your M at much less a couple of rounds ago. M is supposed to tell you how many rounds you can survive, but nobody told you to consider that the level can change twice in a single orbit. This is the missing link. M has to be considered for not only an immediate level change but all impending level changes that will affect the 'tail end' of your real M. I'll call it MR. M12 based on level X can realistically mean 1 orbit at level X, 2 orbits at level X+1 and 1/2 orbit at level X+2. Now, M12 in this situation = MR3.5 and K♣3♣ UTG on a table with 6 other fairly timid opponents = push.

A good, rapid dealer can run about 30 and 35 hands per hour and automatic shuffling machines can speed the process up to about 40 to 45 hands per hour. A typical online poker game deals between 65 and 85 hands per hour. A self-dealt game with inexperienced players can crawl at 18-25 hands per hour.

I believe that Mr. Harrington's M is based on 1 hour blinds with a speed of 30 hands per hour. I establish a baseline of 30 hands per blind level. M1 assumes one orbit of 10 players (B+A)

Consider an M10 on a blind schedule that doubles. 1/3rd should be based on the current level, 1/3rd based on the next, and the remainder on the level after. Your effective M10 -- 3M·1(current level)+3M·1/2(next level)+4M·1/4(level after)+1M·1/8 -- MR5.35 You think you have 'time', and you're playing Dan's recommended 'zones', but you're not. You're much worse off that you think you are.

If you have an online tournament with 30 minute levels, then you can expect to see 35 hands per level; (70hph) You're better off, even though you have less time. You'll see 16.6% more hands, so you can slow down your M erosion that much: Roughly, M10+16.66%=M11.66 -- M3.5·1+3.5M·1/2+3.5M·1/4+1.16M·1/8 -- MR6.2 (the level consideration stretches because you lose more M per level, but you see more hands, so your have more M to eat up)

How about a home game with 18hph and 20 minute rounds? 6 hands per level. You're seeing only 20% of number of hands that Dan was considering when he wrote his book. Now what's your M10 worth? Well, you'll lose less M per level; only .6 per level. M10·20%=M2 -- .6M·1+.6M·1/2+.6M·1/4+.2M·1/8 -- MR1.075. An M10 to a dead zone wisp.

If you mentally think about tournament game structures, you'll see that this concept is even closer to the truth.

How does that change your play considerations? Kick in antes, and you have blown M to smithereens. No wonder so many tournament that we play are crapshoots.

I thought of this today, June 18th, 2007. Me. If not, I want to see where someone wrote it first.