Where ICM is lacking?

[tshort]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

3.) fold equity in the sense that you might get better situations later


[/ QUOTE ]

[pineapple888]

4 goes to the desire of a pro to reduce variance, while 5 is a somewhat different issue.

Your issue I fold into 3. It is correct to be tighter earlier in general in order to establish a better image for when the blinds are higher and more valuable. Your point is correct that when it's down to a bunch of regs, this goes out the window.

The most fun I ever had playing STTs was a bubble with me, curtains, DoYouSeeWhy, and raptor. Talk about playing chicken...

[KyleH186]

[ 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.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

ICM models equity in tournaments according to current chip stacks. While it has shown to be close in most situations, ICM does not perfectly model your equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, ignoring the real-world corrections I addressed in another post for the moment, ICM undervalues big stacks slightly (steal equity) and overvalues micro-stacks slightly (loss of fold equity).

[tshort]

[ 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?

[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.

[ChipLeader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you took the first wager 50% of the time youd have $2, not $3, going into tomorrow. The other 50% of the time youd be broke. Im not going to compute the EV though because my point was just that you cant say its +EV and push without thinking about BETTER options. The above example was meant to illustrate this point, not be replaced as a poker analogy.

[taipan168]

Slim Pickens wrote a really good post on the shortcomings of ICM:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=9305406

[ChipLeader]

[ QUOTE ]
Slim Pickens wrote a really good post on the shortcomings of ICM:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=9305406

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. And he has, indeed, brought out more shortcoming of the model. I think ill try last night's post again tonight since everyone seems fairly fired up about all this.

[cougar62]

I've been reading this thread, and think the discussion is great. But it strikes me that just about everyone is saying the same thing in different ways.

Maybe it would help if everyone thinks of the min edge as a margin of error. In reality, all the min edge does is change where the arrow points in SNGPT, and change whether or not you get a green "Push" or a red "Fold" in SNGWiz. So basically, whether a play is a push/call or a fold is dependent on the margin of error you are willing to tolerate in the particular situation.

When you get a sense for that, and improve your ability to assign accurate ranges (which will never be completely accurate all the time), is when ICM can be used at it's maximum benefit. That's where pineapples 5 factors come into play, I have never seen them identified in that way, but it's truly a great way of defining how to adjust your margin of error in order to get the optimal play in each situation.