|
|
#11
07-05-2007, 08:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Theory: An ICM Tutorial Chat. (Long)
[ QUOTE ]
I'm still learning this too, in the beginning of the tourney, everyone's equity = .1. When Player 10 lost to player one, how does the math go for the new ICM numbers? [/ QUOTE ] Everyone's equity, excluding P#1, increased by 0.002. P#1's equity, doubling up through P#10, is increased by 0.084. I believe the significance of this comes in when you estimate the equity behind doubling up 6-10 handed, as opposed to 2-5 handed. For example, say on the bubble (4-handed, obv.), everyone miraculously had 3,750. Now, everyone's equity as it stands is .250, or $25. Now, if P#2 were to push all-in (as the SB) against P#1 (the BB) & get called, depending on the situation (yada, yada, yada), if P#2 were to win, his equity of the pot will have almost doubled & he'd be sittin' pretty after the bubble (with an equity of .348, or $34.80c). Now, compare P#2's increase in equity (on the bubble) to P#1's increase in equity (still 10-handed) & you get a feel for why doubling up on the bubble is of more significance in the opening orbits. I think.. 
|
|
#13
07-05-2007, 08:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Theory: An ICM Tutorial Chat. (Long)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm still learning this too, in the beginning of the tourney, everyone's equity = .1. When Player 10 lost to player one, how does the math go for the new ICM numbers? [/ QUOTE ] By doubling up early on your equity almost doubles(Increases more than 80%) but while you double up on bubble it increases by ~55%.The reasons why you shouldn't take risks early on are others not that doubeling up isn't worth any. Everyone's equity, excluding P#1, increased by 0.002. P#1's equity, doubling up through P#10, is increased by 0.084. I believe the significance of this comes in when you estimate the equity behind doubling up 6-10 handed, as opposed to 2-5 handed. For example, say on the bubble (4-handed, obv.), everyone miraculously had 3,750. Now, everyone's equity as it stands is .250, or $25. Now, if P#2 were to push all-in (as the SB) against P#1 (the BB) & get called, depending on the situation (yada, yada, yada), if P#2 were to win, his equity of the pot will have almost doubled & he'd be sittin' pretty after the bubble (with an equity of .348, or $34.80c). Now, compare P#2's increase in equity (on the bubble) to P#1's increase in equity (still 10-handed) & you get a feel for why doubling up on the bubble is of more significance in the opening orbits. I think.. [/ QUOTE ] By doubling up early on your equity almost doubles(Increases more than 80%) but while you double up on bubble it increases by ~55%.The reasons why you shouldn't take risks early on are others not that doubeling up isn't worth any.
|
|
#14
07-05-2007, 09:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Theory: An ICM Tutorial Chat. (Long)
Homework Answer 1:
Hands which are ties are not particularly useful for this example, so 22 vs 22 and the like are out. We'd ideally like one that is either a win or a loss with a negligable tie value. According to Pokerstove: 66o vs 98s is 0.50006 which is about as close as you can get. However this is a range. and not a direct matchup. When you start looking at actual matchups: 6d6h vs 9d8d is 0.50115 but this is not as good as our 0.50084 for AhKh vs 2c2s Has anyone else found anything better than AhKh vs 2c2s?
|
|
#16
07-07-2007, 06:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Theory: An ICM Tutorial Chat. (Long)
First, the timing on this could not have been better. I posted something yesterday about a problem Ive been having recently and all anyone said was "ICM, ICM, ICM!!"... and of course "youre not as good as you think and youve just been lucky", but thats to be expected. Anyway, I was researching it a bit last night but I have a question in regards to the math. To my knowledge it does not take into account that you are the one taking all the risks on the bubble. What I mean is, if im pushing everytime its +EV, I am also staking my potential tournament life or at least risking crippling myself, far more often than the other 3 players. If I had three people around me pushing constantly because ICM says its +EV, I would sit back and wait til one busts or I wake up to a huge hand.
|
|
#17
07-08-2007, 06:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Theory: An ICM Tutorial Chat. (Long)
[ QUOTE ]
First, the timing on this could not have been better. I posted something yesterday about a problem Ive been having recently and all anyone said was "ICM, ICM, ICM!!"... and of course "youre not as good as you think and youve just been lucky", but thats to be expected. Anyway, I was researching it a bit last night but I have a question in regards to the math. To my knowledge it does not take into account that you are the one taking all the risks on the bubble. What I mean is, if im pushing everytime its +EV, I am also staking my potential tournament life or at least risking crippling myself, far more often than the other 3 players. If I had three people around me pushing constantly because ICM says its +EV, I would sit back and wait til one busts or I wake up to a huge hand. [/ QUOTE ] You don't understand ICM yet. The calculations include the risk of busting out and the loss of equity that entails. If the rest of the table are not using ICM correctly (or at all) and are pushing a lot in -EV spots, then you should demand a higher edge for a push to account for the chance of one of them busting out soon. If they're making -EV calls, then you need to factor their loose calling range into your ICM calculations. Whether or not they're using ICM correctly, you're giving up a lot of EV by refusing to use it yourself.
|
|
#18
07-08-2007, 07:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Theory: An ICM Tutorial Chat. (Long)
[ QUOTE ]
If I had three people around me pushing constantly because ICM says its +EV, I would sit back and wait til I am blinded off to a degree where doubling up doesn't even help me. [/ QUOTE ] FYP
|
|
#19
07-08-2007, 07:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Theory: An ICM Tutorial Chat. (Long)
[ QUOTE ]
I would sit back and wait til I am blinded off to a degree where doubling up doesn't even help me. [/ QUOTE ] Ill give you half my stack everytime if you guarentee i make the money with the other half... unless I have 40% or more of the total chips in play. This isnt an MTT, its not "im only in it for the win." The difference between 4th and 3rd is same as 2nd and 1st, ensuring 3rd with still plenty of opportunity for higher placement sounds like a great deal.
|
|
#20
07-08-2007, 07:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Theory: An ICM Tutorial Chat. (Long)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I would sit back and wait til I am blinded off to a degree where doubling up doesn't even help me. [/ QUOTE ] Ill give you half my stack everytime if you guarentee i make the money with the other half... unless I have 40% or more of the total chips in play. This isnt an MTT, its not "im only in it for the win." The difference between 4th and 3rd is same as 2nd and 1st, ensuring 3rd with still plenty of opportunity for higher placement sounds like a great deal. [/ QUOTE ] LOL, do you seriously not understand what I'm writing there? Very often you won't "give me half your stack and then make the money". You'll give me your entire stack and then I make the money...
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
