Where ICM is lacking?

[KyleH186]

[ 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.