ICM in HU tourneys: it doesn\'t apply, amirite?
 

Because the winner takes it all, right?

Re: ICM in HU tourneys: it doesn\'t apply, amirite?
 

I thought it did because even at the end of a STT both players are guaranteed x amount of money, and are playing for the same amount. In a husng both players are guaranteed x amount of money (nothing) and are playing for the same amount.

There have been some threads about this in the last few months, try giving it a search.

Re: ICM in HU tourneys: it doesn\'t apply, amirite?
 

From my understanding ICM relates $equity to stack size. For example, if person A has 5000 chips left in a SNG with 3 people left, his $equity is different if the chips are distributed 5000, 1000, 4000 vs. 5000, 2500, 2500.

Now, that doesn't happen when you get down to headsup, because for any stacksize X, the other stack is 3000-X, so the $equity for any X is directly related to X/3000.

SNG people will say something like: "headsup, chipEV = $Ev"

So the short answer is that it's irrelevant HU.

EDIT: just played around with some online ICM calcs, and sure enough, the equity that they calculate is simply your stacksize divided by the total number of chips (when HU).

Re: ICM in HU tourneys: it doesn\'t apply, amirite?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I thought it did because even at the end of a STT both players are guaranteed x amount of money, and are playing for the same amount. In a husng both players are guaranteed x amount of money (nothing) and are playing for the same amount.

There have been some threads about this in the last few months, try giving it a search.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does not apply .

If player A has x chips and player B has 3000-x chips , then player A's equity in terms of the prize pool is x/3000*0.5 . Player B's equity is (3000-x)/3000 or 1-x/3000 . Both combined add up to 1 ( or 100%) which is the total prize pool . This is one of the reasons why Sage only applies to heads up sng's since there is only one winner and one loser whereas in a 9 player sng , the final two contestant are battling for two itm positions .

Re: ICM in HU tourneys: it doesn\'t apply, amirite?
 

It doesn't apply because chips don't change value so cEV = $EV.

Re: ICM in HU tourneys: it doesn\'t apply, amirite?
 

It seems like everyone is saying that if a 9-player SNG had only one prize, then the ICM would not work. Is this correct?

Re: ICM in HU tourneys: it doesn\'t apply, amirite?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like everyone is saying that if a 9-player SNG had only one prize, then the ICM would not work. Is this correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right .

If a 9 player sng had only one payout for the winner , then ICM is a linear relationship and $ev = Cev . So your equity can be computed by taking the number of chips you have and dividing it by the total number of chips .

It's linear in that if you increase your stack size by x , then you've increased your equity by x .

Re: ICM in HU tourneys: it doesn\'t apply, amirite?
 

Good thing ICM doesn't work, that would make HUSNGs super boring. I don't want to play a gimme game, and I want to play actual poker, or something close to it, anyways.

Re: ICM in HU tourneys: it doesn\'t apply, amirite?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems like everyone is saying that if a 9-player SNG had only one prize, then the ICM would not work. Is this correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right .

If a 9 player sng had only one payout for the winner , then ICM is a linear relationship and $ev = Cev . So your equity can be computed by taking the number of chips you have and dividing it by the total number of chips .

It's linear in that if you increase your stack size by x , then you've increased your equity by x .

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, in ANY winner take all tourney format like satellites and 4-man HU tournies, cEV = $EV.

Re: ICM in HU tourneys: it doesn\'t apply, amirite?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Both combined add up to 1 ( or 100%) which is the total prize pool . This is one of the reasons why Sage only applies to heads up sng's since there is only one winner and one loser whereas in a 9 player sng , the final two contestant are battling for two itm positions .

[/ QUOTE ]

I was pretty sure SAGE applied in normal SNG's. First, it's called the [S]it [A]nd [G]o [E]ndgame system. It's designed to aid tournament players when they get down to HU.

Second, the 'itm'-ness doesn't matter, right? It's just a [near-]optimal jam/fold strategy with low stack/BB ratios.

The only case where SAGE is irrelevant in a HU tourney with large blinds is when the payouts for both spots are equal, so nobody cares who wins (or perhaps in a bizarre world where the loser gets paid more, in which case SAGE is a bad idea).

In other words, in a 9man SNG that's down to the final 2 players with Stack/BB ratios<8BB, SAGE applies, and ICM is irrelevant.