PDA

View Full Version : ICM Calculator Update

dethgrind
02-09-2005, 06:42 PM
ICM Calculator Update

Now allows you to specify the payout structure:
http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~sharnett/ICM/ICM.html

Please PM me with any bugs or issues.

Also, I'd like to point out that this is written in javascript. This means the code is embedded in the source of the web page; take a look at it (click "Source" in the View menu). This also means you can simply download the page to use the calculator; you don't have to go to my website. Of course, I prefer you go to my site so I can track the calculator's popularity.

Sometime in the near future I plan on posting a comparison of ICM predictions versus a couple different random walk simulations for several different stack size scenarios. I think this seriously should have been done a while ago to respond to the question: "How do you know this reasonably approximates tournament poker?" From what I remember, the numbers are very close for most scenarios.
ilya
02-09-2005, 08:53 PM
So you DID read my post. Thank you very much sir.
eastbay
02-09-2005, 11:34 PM
Bozeman did a fairly serious study comparing the ICM type methods with methods which solve a diffusion equation of some kind (random walk in the limit).

You might want to look that up.

eastbay
dethgrind
02-10-2005, 12:13 AM
Yes, and I've actually linked to that page many times (it's where he coined the term "independent chip model"). I just hadn't read it in a while. After re-reading it, I'm fairly convinced. He checked quite a few cases.

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=519924

He also gives a link to his C code implementing ICM in the last reply on that thread.
eastbay
02-10-2005, 01:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, and I've actually linked to that page many times (it's where he coined the term "independent chip model"). I just hadn't read it in a while. After re-reading it, I'm fairly convinced. He checked quite a few cases.


[/ QUOTE ]

Remember, just because the two models compare favorably doesn't mean that either of them is "right." They could just be equally wrong. Of course, I have staked quite a few $$ on them being reasonable, and haven't been disappointed.

eastbay