Okay, from context, it has something to do with the size of the pot (or is it blinds) vs. number of chips you (or someone) has left. I see people discussing it when talking about fold equity and/or being pot committed...

So, what is M? How is it calculated? How is it used?

Thanks from a newb... (I played fairly heavily for a few months last Spring, took 6 months off, then just started playing again a month ago. Only book I've read is Brunson's Super System from the late 70s, but I've read a ton of web sites and magazines.... this is the first site where I've seen M used so heavily.)

It's from Harrington on Holdem

M = Your Chip stack divided by the Starting Pot

If blinds are 100/200 and you have 3,000 in chips, your M is 10. If the table is short handed, then your effective M = M*# of players/10. So if there were five players at the table, effective M = 5.

Harrington classifies different zones and the strategies that you should generally use as you enter each zone.

Out of all the things that have helped improve my tourney game, HOH 2 and this forum have been the most helpful...I recommend using each resource

imo, M is a good tool.
But I play 6 Man STT's and Effective M is way to extreme.

I think the Effective M's even in 10 Man tournies are too extreme.

1500.
Blinds 100/50
5 Players left.
I don't think we are in push/fold mode.
Put another way, I hardly see it much different than 8 handed with 1500 chips
It depends a ton on other stacks at that point ( Q )

Yeah, that's what M is. When I first read HOH2 I used this M stuff so much. I think it's better used as a tool to know when you can raise and not be in too much trouble.

I used to think if I had 10xBB I was in fine shape and adjustments were not neccessary. So it was helpful to realize that this is not comfortable. However, I agree with Actuary, Q is where it's at. Where is your stack compared to the Avg stack.

Could i try this generlization:

M guides me on what to play from where
Q tells me how to play it

tha't out of my ***.

but I'll defend it! lol

I don't really know about it. I think where M is most incorrect is the "red zone" of 5. This is where Q matters so much more. I don't care if my M is 4 if everyone else is in worse shape than me, I'm not going into a pushing frenzy.

The whole idea of M really changed my game a lot though. Just the concept that as you are getting shorter and shorter you need to be widening your range not narrowing. It was completely contrary to my thinking of beforehand. I was like well now we really have to wait for a good hand, getting a little short, then I just flipped a switch somewhere, probably near an M of 1.5 and would just push like 78 or something.

I'm still not adjusting properly in the orange zone acording to Harrington
I

I hate the orange zone. Those points at which pushing seems like overbetting but a standard raise takes up too much of your stack. I like easy decisions.

Thanks,
Looks like I have my next book picked out.

FYP

The first 2 volumes are fantastic, but I strongly disagreed with a lot of his decisions in the third book. Still worthwhile though.

That's the key...they, like any poker book, are guides, not Bibles.

The problem is in the third book he often gives full credit for one option, but nothing for another. Often there is no clear cut decision.

At one point he advocates betting 550 into a pot of about 3000 on the turn with an unimproved 33 against a preflop raiser. He claims it denies correct pot odds, but his logic is flawed.