Hello all. This is only my second post and so u might have guessed it has taken something that has gotten me soul searching to make this post!
I have been readin through the Harrington series, and am currently 3/4 of the way through Vol 2. As you are probably aware this mainly deals with M and Q for Inflection/Mutliple Inflection Points.
Having put Vol 1 to practice I found my results no end i.e. I have won numerous live tournaments (fields of 120 Coalition soldiers in Iraq) and done well in S n G's online. The approach has been tight, tight, tight all the way. A couple of people I have spoken to have stated that they did not totally agree with Harrington as it seemed so scientific and recommended Phil Gordons approach (my next read).
I must admit my game has loosened slightly and my cash game results/S n G's have improved a little.
But now I have come across Inflection Points. I had worked this out for myself previously but had remained disciplined and tight in the face of increasing blinds. I always made the final table, but was sometimes frustratingly blinded away and other times won from small stack (a position I must admit I play my best poker from).
Since reading Harringtons theory on Inflection points my results have gone on a bit of a downward spiral. I have only really seen it 'work'
the once (40th out of 9,000 online). All the other times I hav ebsted out of tourneys much earlier than I am accustomed to. I am aware that some of this has been to my error i.e in some cases going all in a little too early (eg an M of 6), other times with a caller (s) before me (ie losing first invigorish as Harrington calls it).
So my first question is....how do you all stand by Haringtons approach a. to the game as a whole (I appreciate he has done a whole lot better than the people that I have spoken to about his book) b. his way of dealing with the rising blinds.
My second question is in my next post!!!!
Author