Where ICM is lacking?
 

A lot of people read (and flamed) my post yesterday about preflop decisions on the bubble of STTs in low stakes touraments. I was told by many to look into and research ICM, which I gladly did (including reading a post by INSTA or something earlier today that has drifted into later pages and i fear wont be coming back.)

First, before anybody gets the wrong idea, i think ICM is an invaluable tool to understand. Do not think I am discrediting it.

I do however, see a few potential problems in a 4 handed situation. Either I dont understand the concept completely correctly yet or there are a few flaws.

A.) Skill is totally negated
If you think you are significantly better than the other 3 players, or have some very solid reads, I feel you can exploit them better making raises and playing poker rather than deciding whether between only 2 plays.

B.) Constantly putting YOURSELF in the line of fire
While it may be a +EV push, taking all these small edges forces you to be the one constantly risking your stack. If I was in a situation where 3 other players were pushing preflops back and forth constantly, i would simply sit back waiting for a monster or til one of them beats another.

C.) Giving up better spots
I think this is my biggest problem with it. As Sklansky said in I forget which book, probably TOP, "A good bet is NOT a good bet if it prevents you from taking a better one later." Pushing because a play is +EV now is still not correct if it means risking a stack now when you can do it later with a better EV.

I think all of these points kinda blend together in ways, but these are the areas where I am struggling when trying to apply ICM. I played a few SnGs earlier just to fiddle with the calculator and try to ingrain the concept better and while it enlightened me as to how many spots I could push and be technically correct, it seemed to advocate too much aggression.

Just my opinions, im sure i have some of this wrong as i am only beginning to get involved in the topic but I would really like to hear as much as I can about this from people who have been using it for a long period of time.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

ICM doesn't lack. The only time ICM can even be refuted is in a situation where taking a slightly -EV call in order to have a bigger stack and abuse ICM more later on.

Skill in SNGs comes down to how well you know ICM. Don't fool yourself into thinking you can outsmart someone playing an unexploitable strategy.

It is unexploitable. SNGs are a mathematically solved game. They are very different from cash games in this respect.

You can make preflop raises that are all in if the blinds are not big, but once those blinds get up to where you have 10-15 BBs, you better be pushing and folding.


Edit: As far as giving up +EV spots for better ones later, that is a flawed concept. ICM deals with +$EV, which means that you will make more money by making the plays. Folding +$EV hands will lose you real dollar value in the long run, its as simple as that.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
ICM doesn't lack. The only time ICM can even be refuted is in a situation where taking a slightly -EV call in order to have a bigger stack and abuse ICM more later on.

Skill in SNGs comes down to how well you know ICM. Don't fool yourself into thinking you can outsmart someone playing an unexploitable strategy.

It is unexploitable. SNGs are a mathematically solved game. They are very different from cash games in this respect.

You can make preflop raises that are all in if the blinds are not big, but once those blinds get up to where you have 10-15 BBs, you better be pushing and folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your answer to my post is "its unexploitable because it is?"

The point I made in the "C.)" section explains why i disagree with what you just said. ICM, as I understand it, does not take into account future opportunities, it only calculates the one at hand. If it is truly exploitable, I would like to hear how. The whole point of the OP was to point out where I think it IS exploitable. If you can show me why im wrong id love to see it.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

It is unexploitable because if I am shoving correctly, and correctly assessing what hands you will call me with, the only way you can cause me problems is by hurting yourself equally or more and spite calling.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ICM doesn't lack. The only time ICM can even be refuted is in a situation where taking a slightly -EV call in order to have a bigger stack and abuse ICM more later on.

Skill in SNGs comes down to how well you know ICM. Don't fool yourself into thinking you can outsmart someone playing an unexploitable strategy.

It is unexploitable. SNGs are a mathematically solved game. They are very different from cash games in this respect.

You can make preflop raises that are all in if the blinds are not big, but once those blinds get up to where you have 10-15 BBs, you better be pushing and folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your answer to my post is "its unexploitable because it is?"

The point I made in the "C.)" section explains why i disagree with what you just said. ICM, as I understand it, does not take into account future opportunities, it only calculates the one at hand. If it is truly exploitable, I would like to hear how. The whole point of the OP was to point out where I think it IS exploitable. If you can show me why im wrong id love to see it.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's got nothing to do with ICM itself. The problem lies with the fact that current software (SNGPT, SNGWiz, etc) only applies ICM to each of the outcomes at the end of the hand.

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

Just a quick comment on C).

You're asking "why should I risk my stack now if I can get it in better later". This is where I can see you missed the whole point of ICM.

If you assign ranges correctly (for the sake of this example let's say perfectly) you will make the equivalant of real money dollars when you make a +EV push/call. There is no disputing this point.

If a guy bet the river in a cash game and you can see his cards and know you have him beat, you wouldnt fold either, right ? Right, because it's throwing away money. Same thing is true for +EV situations. If you know a push/call is +EV, you are going to make money in the long run by pushing/calling instead of folding/waiting.

Of course there are situations in which pushing/folding are close. Here is where the "edge" comes into play (sngwiz uses the term, you can call it whatever you want). B/c none of us can assign ranges perfectly and there is always the chance of someone to act behind you busting without you pushing (which is +EV for you), you will sometimes pass up on marginal situations as it is possible they are -EV (if you assigned wrong ranges) or someone might get busted which is more +EV than your push.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is unexploitable because if I am shoving correctly, and correctly assessing what hands you will call me with, the only way you can cause me problems is by hurting yourself equally or more and spite calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kyle,

You are being short-sighted and the OP is correct. There are spots where even though you probably have the correct range and it is +ICMEV it could be better to make the other play.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is unexploitable because if I am shoving correctly, and correctly assessing what hands you will call me with, the only way you can cause me problems is by hurting yourself equally or more and spite calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kyle,

You are being short-sighted and the OP is correct. There are spots where even though you probably have the correct range and it is +ICMEV it could be better to make the other play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think by this you mean tho that you will have a more +EV move in the future, which is essentially still using ICM

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

The whole point of ICM is that it calculates the effect of a short term play on your long term profit. Thus, following ICM cannot be short sighted.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The whole point of ICM is that it calculates the effect of a short term play on your long term profit. Thus, following ICM cannot be short sighted.

[/ QUOTE ]

ICM models equity in tournaments according to current chip stacks. While it has shown to be close in most situations, ICM does not perfectly model your equity.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I think by this you mean tho that you will have a more +EV move in the future, which is essentially still using ICM

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, you are still using ICM [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] The overall point I am trying to make is that ICM only determines that in a vacuum, a push/fold is right in this instance. It does not, however, make it the BEST play. Our goal is to to make profit, it is to MAXIMIZE profit, correct? So while a push is +EV now, it may still not be the BEST play if we can get even higher EV by waiting.

Suppose you were HU and the opponent was going to push any two. You pick up AK. However, the dealer has promised me AA next hand. While this example is absurd, the point I am trying to make it that a +EV hand can still be an incorrect play if there will be better chances later.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The whole point of ICM is that it calculates the effect of a short term play on your long term profit. Thus, following ICM cannot be short sighted.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have $1. I offer you a coinflip where you pay $1 if I win and I pay $2 if you win today, but tomorrow im going to offer $3 for your $1. Taking the bet today would be stupid. Thats how ICM can be shortsighted- you are (potentially) passing up better opportunities.

The issue then is how often a better opportunity will come about, something that I feel needs to be included in these SnG ICM tools.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

Why not push the AK this hand, and then the AA next hand?


edit: I think the future opportunity implications are easily negated by the fact that each successful ICM push, should make the following opportunities even more lucrative due to the increase in your stack size.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why not push the AK this hand, and then the AA next hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

HES pushing any two. But even if i said hes CALLING any 2, its a terrible move. Do you really not see how giving up a small edge for a huge one is the right play? AK is going to be 70/30 at best, AA is going to be 75/25 at WORST, and usually 85/15. Unless blinds were a HUGE portion of your stack, and theyd have to be MONSTROUS, waiting one hand is an easy play.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]

You have $1. I offer you a coinflip where you pay $1 if I win and I pay $2 if you win today, but tomorrow im going to offer $3 for your $1. Taking the bet today would be stupid. Thats how ICM can be shortsighted- you are (potentially) passing up better opportunities.

The issue then is how often a better opportunity will come about, something that I feel needs to be included in these SnG ICM tools.

[/ QUOTE ]
Assume each wager can only be taken once, and any winnings can be wagered the next day (this makes the analogy closer to a poker situtation).

Lets say you take the 1st wager. Now 50% of the time you end up with $3, you then take this $3 and wager it tommorrow, gaining $9 if you win losing your $3 if you lose. Therefore you have a 25% chance of ending up with $12, EV = $3.

Now lets say you pass on the 1st wager, and take the 2nd. You now end up with $4 50% of the time, EV = $2.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You have $1. I offer you a coinflip where you pay $1 if I win and I pay $2 if you win today, but tomorrow im going to offer $3 for your $1. Taking the bet today would be stupid. Thats how ICM can be shortsighted- you are (potentially) passing up better opportunities.

[/ QUOTE ]
That would be correct, except for the fact that every hour throughout the night I'm going to hit you in the head with a baseball bat and try to take your dollar.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

OK n00bs, there are five main reasons to make corrections to ICM:

1.) skill edge
2.) fold equity in the sense that other donks bust each other out
3.) fold equity in the sense that you might get better situations later
4.) uncertainty in assigning ranges
5.) asymmetrical ranges (where a slight misjudgement in ranges has a much greater downside than upside)

Part of the skill of STTs is understanding how important each of those five factors become in various situations, to set your minimum edge correctly. This min edge can range from quite large to potentially slightly negative (on very tough tables where the sizable blinds are about to hit you).

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK n00bs, there are five main reasons to make corrections to ICM:

1.) skill edge
2.) fold equity in the sense that other donks bust each other out
3.) fold equity in the sense that you might get better situations later
4.) uncertainty in assigning ranges
5.) asymmetrical ranges (where a slight misjudgement in ranges has a much greater downside than upside)

Part of the skill of STTs is understanding how important each of those five factors become in various situations, to set your minimum edge correctly. This min edge can range from quite large to potentially slightly negative (on very tough tables where the sizable blinds are about to hit you).

[/ QUOTE ]


These are components of ICM though, and adjusting your edge is part of it. They are not areas where ICM lacks, as the OP has suggested.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK n00bs, there are five main reasons to make corrections to ICM:

1.) skill edge
2.) fold equity in the sense that other donks bust each other out
3.) fold equity in the sense that you might get better situations later
4.) uncertainty in assigning ranges
5.) asymmetrical ranges (where a slight misjudgement in ranges has a much greater downside than upside)


[/ QUOTE ]
I think 4) and 5) should be combined [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img].

What about table image? I often pass up slight +EV pushes at ~15 BBs in order to preserve a tight table image. Since, most of the time the tighter your opponents calling range the higher your +EV is when you push. So in later situations when I start pushing more trash at ~10 BBs my pushes will be slightly higher +EV.

Of course at higher levels where there are more regs with a large sample of stats on you I could see this effect diminish.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK n00bs, there are five main reasons to make corrections to ICM:

1.) skill edge
2.) fold equity in the sense that other donks bust each other out
3.) fold equity in the sense that you might get better situations later
4.) uncertainty in assigning ranges
5.) asymmetrical ranges (where a slight misjudgement in ranges has a much greater downside than upside)

Part of the skill of STTs is understanding how important each of those five factors become in various situations, to set your minimum edge correctly. This min edge can range from quite large to potentially slightly negative (on very tough tables where the sizable blinds are about to hit you).

[/ QUOTE ]


These are components of ICM though, and adjusting your edge is part of it. They are not areas where ICM lacks, as the OP has suggested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kyle,

Explain to me how any of those 5 factors are taken in account for by ICM.

You're lost here.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What about table image? I often pass up slight +EV pushes at ~15 BBs in order to preserve a tight table image. Since, most of the time the tighter your opponents calling range the higher your +EV is when you push. So in later situations when I start pushing more trash at ~10 BBs my pushes will be slightly higher +EV.

Of course at higher levels where there are more regs with a large sample of stats on you I could see this effect diminish.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

3.) fold equity in the sense that you might get better situations later


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

4 goes to the desire of a pro to reduce variance, while 5 is a somewhat different issue.

Your issue I fold into 3. It is correct to be tighter earlier in general in order to establish a better image for when the blinds are higher and more valuable. Your point is correct that when it's down to a bunch of regs, this goes out the window.

The most fun I ever had playing STTs was a bubble with me, curtains, DoYouSeeWhy, and raptor. Talk about playing chicken...

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK n00bs, there are five main reasons to make corrections to ICM:

1.) skill edge
2.) fold equity in the sense that other donks bust each other out
3.) fold equity in the sense that you might get better situations later
4.) uncertainty in assigning ranges
5.) asymmetrical ranges (where a slight misjudgement in ranges has a much greater downside than upside)

Part of the skill of STTs is understanding how important each of those five factors become in various situations, to set your minimum edge correctly. This min edge can range from quite large to potentially slightly negative (on very tough tables where the sizable blinds are about to hit you).

[/ QUOTE ]


These are components of ICM though, and adjusting your edge is part of it. They are not areas where ICM lacks, as the OP has suggested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kyle,

Explain to me how any of those 5 factors are taken in account for by ICM.

You're lost here.

[/ QUOTE ]



Simple really, say for example you are using SNGwizard, you move that edge slider higher or lower based on those 5 factors. If your difference between EV push and EV fold is > edge, then you push.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The whole point of ICM is that it calculates the effect of a short term play on your long term profit. Thus, following ICM cannot be short sighted.

[/ QUOTE ]

ICM models equity in tournaments according to current chip stacks. While it has shown to be close in most situations, ICM does not perfectly model your equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, ignoring the real-world corrections I addressed in another post for the moment, ICM undervalues big stacks slightly (steal equity) and overvalues micro-stacks slightly (loss of fold equity).

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK n00bs, there are five main reasons to make corrections to ICM:

1.) skill edge
2.) fold equity in the sense that other donks bust each other out
3.) fold equity in the sense that you might get better situations later
4.) uncertainty in assigning ranges
5.) asymmetrical ranges (where a slight misjudgement in ranges has a much greater downside than upside)

Part of the skill of STTs is understanding how important each of those five factors become in various situations, to set your minimum edge correctly. This min edge can range from quite large to potentially slightly negative (on very tough tables where the sizable blinds are about to hit you).

[/ QUOTE ]


These are components of ICM though, and adjusting your edge is part of it. They are not areas where ICM lacks, as the OP has suggested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kyle,

Explain to me how any of those 5 factors are taken in account for by ICM.

You're lost here.

[/ QUOTE ]



Simple really, say for example you are using SNGwizard, you move that edge slider higher or lower based on those 5 factors. If your difference between EV push and EV fold is > edge, then you push.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we talking about how to use SNGWizard to implement those 5 factors, or ICM?

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK n00bs, there are five main reasons to make corrections to ICM:

1.) skill edge
2.) fold equity in the sense that other donks bust each other out
3.) fold equity in the sense that you might get better situations later
4.) uncertainty in assigning ranges
5.) asymmetrical ranges (where a slight misjudgement in ranges has a much greater downside than upside)

Part of the skill of STTs is understanding how important each of those five factors become in various situations, to set your minimum edge correctly. This min edge can range from quite large to potentially slightly negative (on very tough tables where the sizable blinds are about to hit you).

[/ QUOTE ]


These are components of ICM though, and adjusting your edge is part of it. They are not areas where ICM lacks, as the OP has suggested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kyle,

Explain to me how any of those 5 factors are taken in account for by ICM.

You're lost here.

[/ QUOTE ]



Simple really, say for example you are using SNGwizard, you move that edge slider higher or lower based on those 5 factors. If your difference between EV push and EV fold is > edge, then you push.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we talking about how to use SNGWizard to implement those 5 factors, or ICM?

[/ QUOTE ]


If thats what you mean then I think we are arguing over semantics. The edge may not actually be apart of ICM but it is part of applying ICM to SNGs, so I was generalizing.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You have $1. I offer you a coinflip where you pay $1 if I win and I pay $2 if you win today, but tomorrow im going to offer $3 for your $1. Taking the bet today would be stupid. Thats how ICM can be shortsighted- you are (potentially) passing up better opportunities.

The issue then is how often a better opportunity will come about, something that I feel needs to be included in these SnG ICM tools.

[/ QUOTE ]
Assume each wager can only be taken once, and any winnings can be wagered the next day (this makes the analogy closer to a poker situtation).

Lets say you take the 1st wager. Now 50% of the time you end up with $3, you then take this $3 and wager it tommorrow, gaining $9 if you win losing your $3 if you lose. Therefore you have a 25% chance of ending up with $12, EV = $3.

Now lets say you pass on the 1st wager, and take the 2nd. You now end up with $4 50% of the time, EV = $2.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you took the first wager 50% of the time youd have $2, not $3, going into tomorrow. The other 50% of the time youd be broke. Im not going to compute the EV though because my point was just that you cant say its +EV and push without thinking about BETTER options. The above example was meant to illustrate this point, not be replaced as a poker analogy.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

Slim Pickens wrote a really good post on the shortcomings of ICM:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=9305406

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Slim Pickens wrote a really good post on the shortcomings of ICM:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=9305406

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. And he has, indeed, brought out more shortcoming of the model. I think ill try last night's post again tonight since everyone seems fairly fired up about all this.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

I've been reading this thread, and think the discussion is great. But it strikes me that just about everyone is saying the same thing in different ways.

Maybe it would help if everyone thinks of the min edge as a margin of error. In reality, all the min edge does is change where the arrow points in SNGPT, and change whether or not you get a green "Push" or a red "Fold" in SNGWiz. So basically, whether a play is a push/call or a fold is dependent on the margin of error you are willing to tolerate in the particular situation.

When you get a sense for that, and improve your ability to assign accurate ranges (which will never be completely accurate all the time), is when ICM can be used at it's maximum benefit. That's where pineapples 5 factors come into play, I have never seen them identified in that way, but it's truly a great way of defining how to adjust your margin of error in order to get the optimal play in each situation.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Slim Pickens wrote a really good post on the shortcomings of ICM:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=9305406

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. And he has, indeed, brought out more shortcoming of the model. I think ill try last night's post again tonight since everyone seems fairly fired up about all this.

[/ QUOTE ]
The fact that ICM has shortcomings doesn't mean that it is wrong. It's still the best thing that we have to pwn SNGs. The key is to be able to make adjustments to ICM when we know the shortcomings are significant (which is very rarely IMO).

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

Interesting discussion, thanks for clarifying a few things for me pineapple.

One concept I have trouble applying is when to take slight -EV pushes, you alluded to this above:
[ QUOTE ]

Part of the skill of STTs is understanding how important each of those five factors become in various situations, to set your minimum edge correctly. This min edge can range from quite large to potentially slightly negative (on very tough tables where the sizable blinds are about to hit you).


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

ICM undervalues big stacks slightly (steal equity) and overvalues micro-stacks slightly (loss of fold equity).

[/ QUOTE ]
So we should make slightly negative EV pushes to prevent losing our fold equity when large blinds are about to cripple our stack? An example of when this is correct would really help me out. Sometimes I find myself doing this intuitively and later look back at my HH and wonder if it was the right play.


Btw ChipLeader look closely at how you worded your example. If you meant to say the 1st toss is a "fair" bet and you have $2 after winning, then the whole example is pointless since a fair bet doesn't change expectation it only increases variance (this might be what you are getting at im not sure).

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting discussion, thanks for clarifying a few things for me pineapple.

One concept I have trouble applying is when to take slight -EV pushes, you alluded to this above:
[ QUOTE ]

Part of the skill of STTs is understanding how important each of those five factors become in various situations, to set your minimum edge correctly. This min edge can range from quite large to potentially slightly negative (on very tough tables where the sizable blinds are about to hit you).


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

ICM undervalues big stacks slightly (steal equity) and overvalues micro-stacks slightly (loss of fold equity).

[/ QUOTE ]
So we should make slightly negative EV pushes to prevent losing our fold equity when large blinds are about to cripple our stack? An example of when this is correct would really help me out. Sometimes I find myself doing this intuitively and later look back at my HH and wonder if it was the right play.


[/ QUOTE ]

And everyone else at the table is clueful so they aren't about to bust each other out. It really doesn't come up all that often. I could construct an example I suppose but don't have one at my fingertips.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

i didnt read any posts but B is wrong. icm should factor in other players actions. a program like sngpt wont factor in other variables once utg+1 calls utgs push. but icm does.


something else i didnt see in the OP was the value of a shortstack. i thought this was the most obvious misunderstanding of ICM. ICM overvalues short stacks, esp on the bubble.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
i didnt read any posts but B is wrong. icm should factor in other players actions. a program like sngpt wont factor in other variables once utg+1 calls utgs push. but icm does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Semantics using the term "ICM" are throwing me off in so many of these posts.

ICM - "Independent Chip Model"

A model / algorithm for determining real dollar equity of chip stacks in a tournament based off a the prize structure.


Now, you say "icm should factor in other players actions"?

Are you referring to a program (a program which happens to use the ICM to assign real dollar equity to chip stacks)? I can see how a program should factor in other players actions.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i didnt read any posts but B is wrong. icm should factor in other players actions. a program like sngpt wont factor in other variables once utg+1 calls utgs push. but icm does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Semantics using the term "ICM" are throwing me off in so many of these posts.

ICM - "Independent Chip Model"

A model / algorithm for determining real dollar equity of chip stacks in a tournament based off a the prize structure.


Now, you say "icm should factor in other players actions"?

Are you referring to a program (a program which happens to use the ICM to assign real dollar equity to chip stacks)? I can see how a program should factor in other players actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

first im not really sure what the OP is saying. B and C are the same to me. B sounds like you dont want to go all in even if its +EV which makes no sense. i assumed he meant: that what seemed +EV might not be because of other players left to act.

in this sense ICM is still correct. you just need to analyze the possible pushing/calling ranges after you and see how that affects your EV.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

ICM and this whole forum was just a big hoax to get me donating my money to Dikshit's bots.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i didnt read any posts but B is wrong. icm should factor in other players actions. a program like sngpt wont factor in other variables once utg+1 calls utgs push. but icm does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Semantics using the term "ICM" are throwing me off in so many of these posts.

ICM - "Independent Chip Model"

A model / algorithm for determining real dollar equity of chip stacks in a tournament based off a the prize structure.


Now, you say "icm should factor in other players actions"?

Are you referring to a program (a program which happens to use the ICM to assign real dollar equity to chip stacks)? I can see how a program should factor in other players actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

first im not really sure what the OP is saying. B and C are the same to me. B sounds like you dont want to go all in even if its +EV which makes no sense. i assumed he meant: that what seemed +EV might not be because of other players left to act.

in this sense ICM is still correct. you just need to analyze the possible pushing/calling ranges after you and see how that affects your EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please read other posts, as most of this has been addressed. Regarding the semantics, we are indeed talking about programs such as SnGPT that determine push or fold based on ICM in many cases, and were also discussing where the ICM falls short such as overvaluing short stacks and undervaluing bigstacks on the bubble. I will not go into more detail here as all of your questions, including those about B and C have been discussed thoroughly.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the semantics, we are indeed talking about programs such as SnGPT that determine push or fold based on ICM

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be a good idea to specify that you are addressing SNGPT, or SNGWIZ, or program xxxx rather than referring to "ICM".

Also, the shortcomings of both ICM and those programs have been discussed so many times you should be searching for plenty of good info in past posts.

Re: Where ICM is lacking?
 

I think there are two ways the OP is going wrong:

1. Assuming that those occasions where other considerations override or significantly modify ICM are much more common than they actually are.

2. Thinking that if he has a skill edge post-flop he can make a standard raise with 10BB and still have enough chips to outplay his opponent on the flop. He's not talking about folding some +EV pushes (although he's undoubtedly doing that too) - he's talking about raising and playing poker instead.

I'm interested to know what the OP thinks is causing his recent lack of profit in SNGs (the subject of his last thread) if he rejects all the advice he got in that thread (ie that he is failing to apply ICM appropriately). Passing up a lot of +EV edges seems to be a pretty good way to neutralise an otherwise +EV playing style.