|
|
#22
08-06-2007, 06:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: When to Ignore ICM, A Winning Turbo Strategy That Is \'Outside the
[ QUOTE ]
looks like a typical p5's strategy post they highlight on their front page, retarded logic and all. [/ QUOTE ] People who play with him say they don't see him actually making these sorts of plays very often, if ever. The logic is OK. It's the execution and the particular example he picked that are bad. 
|
|
#23
08-06-2007, 06:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: When to Ignore ICM, A Winning Turbo Strategy That Is \'Outside the
He used to post on P5 a solid amount pointing out how his stlye was so "unorthodox" like it was the new "cool" thing to do.
His results at low limits are solid but I dont think hed do well anywhere higher than the $27s on Stars assuming he keeps the same strat.
|
|
#24
08-06-2007, 07:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: When to Ignore ICM, A Winning Turbo Strategy That Is \'Outside the
I didn't RTFA but that advice sounds like the advice of a guy who felt awesome and justified when his crap hand happened to be overs.
I do tend to agree with the intent; ie, sacrifice ITM% for more first places-- but I don't think meh calls on the bubble will get you there. Especially when meh-calling for survival rather than for chip equity post-bubble. I would consider making that call if my stack were bigger and a win would give me an advantage ITM but a loss would keep me bubble competitive. But ya know, most of the time if my stack fits those conditions, it also fits the conditions that compel me to steal maniacally while everyone prays the shortstack calls. Much more value in that than being an ICM-ignoring maverick. This guy's got more FE with any two in a future hand and he can count more on that than his sub-borderline call. Would he have written the article if the underpair held up and he was out a buy-in? We'll never know.
|
|
#25
08-06-2007, 07:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: When to Ignore ICM, A Winning Turbo Strategy That Is \'Outside the
The example blowed. The only time I'd make this call is if my ability to steal was greatly limited (Micro / bigstacks on my right). Still, it looks and feels like someone with their head chopped off makes this call. Use extremely sparingly, IMO.
|
|
#26
08-06-2007, 07:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: When to Ignore ICM, A Winning Turbo Strategy That Is \'Outside the
The undeniable fact is that ICM is a simple, incomplete way correlate chip value to $ value in a tournament. Going on ICM alone, it is possible to beat some levels of SNGs, and probably play above average at almost all levels.
The top players, however look beyond ICM. Maybe this is not a good example, but he is right at that. If people want to be the best, they need to know where ICM has flaws. It's a shame that ICM on its own works so well with so many people not even understanding the calculation.
|
|
#28
08-06-2007, 07:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: When to Ignore ICM, A Winning Turbo Strategy That Is \'Outside the
To illustrate my point about a bad call being worse than a bad push, I'll use an example similar to the one given in the article.
blinds: 200/400/A25 UTG (t6300) CO (t1500) Button (t2300) SB (t1500) Hero (t1900) Hero is BB with K7o. Preflop: 2 folds, Button pushes t2300, SB folds, Hero ??? Against a range of {22+,A2+,K2+,Q2+,J2+,T3o+,T2s+,95o+,92s+,86o+,84s+ ,76o,75s+,65s} (75%), the call is +1.5% (huge!) with K7o. Against a very tight range of {66+,ATo+,A9s+,KQs} (9%), the call is -4.6%. To turn it around and look at the push from the button's perspective, against the nittiest two opponents imaginable, where the blinds only call with QQ+, the push is +4.1%. Against complete calling stations who call with {22+,A2+,K2+,Q5o+,Q2s+,J8o+,J5s+,T8o+,T7s+,98s} (50%) it's +1.9%. The push only changed 2.2% over the spectrum of possible opponent hand ranges. The call changed 6.1%. Pushing with the wrong hands was not nearly as bad as calling with the wrong hands given the opposing ranges.
|
|
#29
08-06-2007, 09:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: When to Ignore ICM, A Winning Turbo Strategy That Is \'Outside the
[ QUOTE ]
I do tend to agree with the intent; ie, sacrifice ITM% for more first places-- but I don't think meh calls on the bubble will get you there. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think this was the intent. ICM actually does model this. If his sole intent was sacrificing ITM% for 1st, there'd be no arguement to these spots at all. We'd just know it was a bad play, and that'd be that. Playing for first is a justification for playing poorly. What he is saying is that taking a -$EV gamble here, is a good thing for a couple reasons: 1) He is going to loose his fold equity anyway, and then face all in situations with similar strength hands, but for smaller pots. 2) That calling and winning here gives him a big stack on the bubble that he can use to make up for the money he loses on the call by itself.
|
|
#30
08-06-2007, 11:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: When to Ignore ICM, A Winning Turbo Strategy That Is \'Outside the
[ QUOTE ]
What he is saying is that taking a -$EV gamble here, is a good thing for a couple reasons: 1) He is going to loose his fold equity anyway, and then face all in situations with similar strength hands, but for smaller pots. 2) That calling and winning here gives him a big stack on the bubble that he can use to make up for the money he loses on the call by itself. [/ QUOTE ] Taking a -$EV gamble is stupid if your intention is to make money cos a -$EV play is a -$EV play no matter how you look at it. If folding leaves him in a desperate spot it could be that calling with a bad hand is actually +$EV. That sort of thing doesn't show up with ICM which is why no one thinks ICM calcs=$EV. I mean if he's truly taking lots and lots of -$EV gambles it would show in his ROI. Maybe he's taking +$EV "gambles" that people who only use ICM think are -$EV. Maybe it's just a question of notation.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
