Where ICM is lacking?

[ChipLeader]

[ 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.

[ChipLeader]

[ 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.

[KyleH186]

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.

[ChipLeader]

[ 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.

[IFoldPktOnes]

[ 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.

[Guthrie]

[ 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.

[pineapple888]

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).

[KyleH186]

[ 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.

[IFoldPktOnes]

[ 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.

[tshort]

[ 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.