What do you think of Harrington's 3 to 1 rule?

In HoH: volume 2 he introduces the 3 to 1 rule for when you are in the red zone. The 3 to 1 rule says...

If you're M is exactly 3, its folded to you, you think there's a 50% chance the remaining players will fold to an all in bet, you're a 2:1 dog if called, then you should push all in.

So do you guys agree with the 3 to 1 rule? Do you always follow this rule when you are in the red zone? Btw, if you don't already know, two undercards are a 1.7:1 dog against two overcards like AK. And King 3 is a 1.5:1 dog against AQ.

When I am in the red zone (mzone of 1-3) I dont really pay attention to those kinds of odds, really I push hands that are dominating or I think that I would have live cards if I am called

While in general I agree with this "rule", I take stock of some factore before I go into what I see as "desperation mode". With an M of 3, how far am I from being at risk in the blinds, how soon are the blinds going to increase? The other weighty factor: how far away is the money, or is more money? If there is a $ consideration involved, that certainly has an affect on my hand requirements.

reglardave said:

While in general I agree with this "rule", I take stock of some factore before I go into what I see as "desperation mode". With an M of 3, how far am I from being at risk in the blinds, how soon are the blinds going to increase? The other weighty factor: how far away is the money, or is more money? If there is a $ consideration involved, that certainly has an affect on my hand requirements.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct.
My post was more of a general guideline to desparation double ups.