Deprecated: stripos(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($haystack) of type string is deprecated in D:\wwwroot\url.wskmn.com\transfer\index.php on line 32
Deprecated: stripos(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($haystack) of type string is deprecated in D:\wwwroot\url.wskmn.com\transfer\index.php on line 38
Deprecated: stripos(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($haystack) of type string is deprecated in D:\wwwroot\url.wskmn.com\transfer\index.php on line 44
Deprecated: stripos(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($haystack) of type string is deprecated in D:\wwwroot\url.wskmn.com\transfer\index.php on line 50
Deprecated: stripos(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($haystack) of type string is deprecated in D:\wwwroot\url.wskmn.com\transfer\index.php on line 56
Deprecated: stripos(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($haystack) of type string is deprecated in D:\wwwroot\url.wskmn.com\transfer\index.php on line 62
Deprecated: stripos(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($haystack) of type string is deprecated in D:\wwwroot\url.wskmn.com\transfer\index.php on line 68
Deprecated: stripos(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($haystack) of type string is deprecated in D:\wwwroot\url.wskmn.com\transfer\index.php on line 74 onabet.tn 365-Os melhores jogos de caça-níqueis
onabet.tn 365:⚡️ Inscreva-se em voltracvoltec.com.br e ilumine seu caminho para a sorte! Ganhe um bônus exclusivo e comece a brilhar nas apostas! ⚡️
Resumo:onabet.tn 365:Os melhores jogos de caça-níqueis
onabet.tn 365
No mundo dos jogos de azar online, as apostas esportivas são uma forma emocionante e popular de se divertir e possivelmente ganhar algum dinheiro extra. No entanto, para os falantes de hindi que desejam participar, pode ser um desafio navegar no mundo das apostas esportivas, especialmente quando se trata de termos e frases específicos do setor. Neste artigo, vamos dar uma olhada onabet.tn 365 onabet.tn 365 como as pessoas que falam hindi podem aproveitar as vantagens do mundo das apostas esportivas, particularmente onabet.tn 365 onabet.tn 365 relação à plataforma Onabet.
Antes de começarmos, é importante entender que as apostas esportivas podem ser um pouco complicadas no início, especialmente se você não estiver familiarizado com os termos e conceitos envolvidos. No entanto, com um pouco de paciência e prática, você estará fazendo suas primeiras apostas onabet.tn 365 onabet.tn 365 pouco tempo.
onabet.tn 365
Onabet é uma plataforma de apostas esportivas online que oferece aos usuários a oportunidade de apostar onabet.tn 365 onabet.tn 365 uma variedade de esportes, incluindo futebol, críquete, tênis e muito mais. A plataforma é popular entre os falantes de hindi, pois oferece suporte à língua hindi, além de outras línguas.
Como fazer apostas onabet.tn 365 onabet.tn 365 Onabet?
Fazer apostas onabet.tn 365 onabet.tn 365 Onabet é fácil e direto. Primeiro, você precisará criar uma conta na plataforma, fornecendo algumas informações pessoais básicas. Em seguida, você poderá fazer um depósito usando uma variedade de opções de pagamento, incluindo cartões de crédito, porta-safes online e outros métodos.
Uma vez que você tiver fundos onabet.tn 365 onabet.tn 365 onabet.tn 365 conta, você poderá começar a fazer suas apostas. Para isso, navegue até a página do esporte ou evento desejado e selecione a opção de apostas desejada. Em seguida, insira o valor da onabet.tn 365 aposta e clique onabet.tn 365 onabet.tn 365 "Colocar aposta" para confirmar.
Termos e frases importantes onabet.tn 365 onabet.tn 365 Onabet
Como mencionado anteriormente, as apostas esportivas podem ser um pouco complicadas no início, especialmente se você não estiver familiarizado com os termos e conceitos envolvidos. Aqui estão algumas palavras-chave e frases importantes que você deve conhecer ao usar Onabet:
Cota: A cota é o valor que uma casa de apostas está disposta a pagar por uma aposta vencedora.
Aposta simples: Uma aposta simples é uma aposta onabet.tn 365 onabet.tn 365 um único resultado, como uma equipe vencer um jogo de futebol.
Aposta combinada: Uma aposta combinada é uma aposta onabet.tn 365 onabet.tn 365 vários resultados, todos os quais devem ocorrer para que a aposta seja considerada vencedora.
Handicap: O handicap é um tipo de aposta onabet.tn 365 onabet.tn 365 que uma equipe é dada uma vantagem ou desvantagem hipotética no placar antes do início do jogo.
Over/Under: Over/Under é um tipo de aposta onabet.tn 365 onabet.tn 365 que você está apostando em
1.onabet.tn 365:Os melhores jogos de caça-níqueis
“True M” versus Harrington’s M and Why Tournament Structure Matters
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). ♠
2.esporte boa sorte:Os melhores jogos de caça-níqueis
Reportagem: Uma Aventura onabet.tn 365 lojas de decoração de interiores onabet.tn 365 Belgravia
Recentemente, fui a uma aventura onabet.tn 365 um local intimidante e ⚾️ alienígena: lojas de decoração de interiores onabet.tn 365 Belgravia. Minha melhor amiga está tentando comprar um apartamento e, para a energizar ⚾️ para essa jornada desanimadora de proprietários "fantasmas", amianto, agentes incompetentes e preços exorbitantes, ela precisava de um pouco de diversão.R
Infelizmente, ela me trouxe consigo: alguém com a sensibilidade visual de um tijolo (Terre D'Egypte? Porphyry Red?). Eu sentei vazio ⚾️ e inútil enquanto ela discutia as nuances de verdesgilo e celadon, interrompendo quando algo óbvio me atingisse. "Essa é amarela!" ⚾️ eu diria, com alegria de criança; ou, "Eu gosto disso ." Na maioria das vezes, olhei para as folhas ⚾️ de cores.
Uma marca de tintas, decidi,onabet.tn 365maioria das nome Clarkes caíam onabet.tn 365 duas categorias de nome: garota rica ou ⚾️ garota rica seu pônei. Nós tivemos muito divertimento trabalhando isso. Jonquil, Evie, Pomona, Clove, Tawny, Brick e Buff: garotas (as ⚾️ últimas duas certamente apelidos de escola). Pippin, Gladstone, Teddy, Tyrian e Pompadour: pôneis. Espero que as pessoas do setor de ⚾️ tintas não se importem com essa impertinência; após todo, eles inventaram Cuisse de Nymphe Emue, que se traduz como "coxa ⚾️ de ninfa abalada" (é um rosa tênue, subtil, enrolado). Você não pode chamar uma tinta disso sem seu tom (Red ⚾️ Ochre?) ao menos um pouco onabet.tn 365onabet.tn 365veia (Nicarágua?).
É ridículo e parodiado sem fim (mais recentemente onabet.tn 365 um anúncio de ⚾️ telefone celular: "lua Anêmica? Cenoura Escovada?"), mas qualquer esforço criativo é mais desafiador do que nomear tintas? Eu costumava escrever ⚾️ descrições provocantes de quartos sem graça de hotéis onabet.tn 365 cadeia e isso mal chega aos pés das colinas da invenção ⚾️ onabet.tn 365 comparação com um gráfico de tintas. Como eles o fazem? Eu li sobre a filosofia por trás da respiração ⚾️ do elefante (aparentemente fashionável nos anos 1870) e como uma tinta foi nomeada Manhã de Harajuku (lembranças de férias e ⚾️ uma lista de reprodução), mas estou tão pouco mais sábio. As escolhas de nomes nunca me sentem erradas: muitas vezes ⚾️ olho para um bebê e penso: "Não, definitivamente não sou um Oscar"; Nunca senti isso sobre, por exemplo, uma amostra ⚾️ marrom de tinta chamada Wainscot. Essas pessoas são gênios. Esquecer o Booker – há um prêmio para nomear tintas.
3.esporte brasil aposta:Os melhores jogos de caça-níqueis
Breaking the bank occurs only if the house fails to cap the total amount payable on a winning bet in a way that bears some reasonable relationship to the total amount of money in play. In contrast, parimutuel betting by its very nature does impose such a cap, and hence the bank cannot be broken.
Providing ATM service on the premises is one of the best ways to do just that. Your customers can make an ATM withdrawal from their bank account or credit union using their ATM card or debit card. If the customer reaches their daily withdrawal limit, they can also use the machine to get a credit card cash advance.
Muitos jogadores de azar perguntam-se qual é o melhor horário para se envolver onabet.tn 365 onabet.tn 365 jogos de a sorte online, 🛡 especialmente quando se trata de Onabet. Embora não exista uma resposta definitiva para esta pergunta, há algumas coisas a considerar 🛡 ao escolher o melhor momento para jogar.
Primeiro, é importante entender que o Onabet, além de ser um excelente site de 🛡 apostas esportivas, oferece uma variedade de outros jogos de azar, como
