ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)

[ZeroPointMachine]

Some random thoughts on ICM, +$EV situations and eastbay’s analyzer.

I think there is quite a bit of confusion and misunderstanding regarding ICM and its use in analyzing SNG situations. This is not meant as a criticism of the model or eastbay’s excellent program. However, people seem to forget that it is a model. It is a method of simplifying a complex situation in order to draw some useful conclusions. It is not the magic infallible push-o-meter that some people seem to believe it is.

There are posts everyday to the effect of “if it’s +$EV you must push”. There are several flaws in this thinking.

#1 Eastbay has arbitrarily set +.5% $EV and <10 BB as a “comfort level” to push. These are best guesses to cover the widest range of situations. But they are not perfect mathematical calculations.

#2 Each push/fold decision in a SNG is not a series of independent trials. You are not paid for each result. This is different from a +EV blackjack play or even a +EV play in a ring game. A +$EV push is part of a series of decisions and often carries a significant risk of ruin.

Let me try to illustrate this with an example:

I offer you a dice game. You pay $10 to play. On a roll of 1-5 you win $3. On a roll of six you lose. Good bet? But you have to roll the dice 15 times before you can collect and if you roll a six you lose all your winnings and your $10 entry. Still a good bet? How many required rolls would make this a good game for you? Or if you have to roll the dice 15 times how high does the +EV on each roll have to be to make it a good game?

I just pulled these numbers out of the air. But, I think they illustrate the point.

How many +0.5% $EV pushes can you make a game before the risk of ruin becomes insurmountable?

Can the games be beaten by pushing every time the push-o-meter says +0.5%EV?
At the 10-30 level absolutely (and beaten pretty hard). But the ROI will not be optimal. Multi tabling can offset the difference and this may be the best way to play with 8 or more tables.(I’ve never played more than 4)
I can’t speak for the higher levels.

I guess my point is that pushing a -$EV situation is always bad. However, folding a +$EV push is not necessarily bad.

I think the system could possibly be refined. One way to do this is to adjust the +0.5% EV cutoff based on stack size. Maybe the number should be different if the move carries no risk of ruin (you can’t be knocked out or crippled) versus when it does. I think many of the top players make these adjustments on the fly. They know that they don’t need to make a particular play even if it is +$EV. They know that 8-9 BB is different from 4-5BB and make adjustments.

I’m not an expert on any of this and I maybe a complete moron. I did not intend to speak for eastbay’s thought processes as many of them are probably over my head. I just felt this was a topic that could use some discussion.

I’m going to lunch now. You have an hour to flame away.

[jedinite]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=3321398&page=2&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1

similar topic on a subset of your post. I think for starters that just about everyone can agree that what is traditionally regarded as a +$EV push (based on traditional bubble calling standards) can quickly turn -EV if people are drastically losening calling standards based upon your frequent application of the pushbot strategy (primarily if you're not showing down hands so they especially feel you're pushing with anything).

If the bubble pushbot strategy turns in to people routinely calling with top 50% the whole strategy will have to be rethought. Are we there yet? Not at the $22 and $33 where I play right now, for sure. Certainly not at the $11. Higher levels headed there soon? Maybe...

This is very incorrect. +EV is +EV is +EV. The one point that you hinge on that's correct is that a push could be +EV on a specific hand but then widen calling ranges on later hands, which would lessen your ability to push. However, as most correct bubble pushes are very blatantly +EV, given that you're not playing against a complete maniac, you're unlikely to run into a situation in which one close bubble decision closely follows another. Thus, slighty widening your opponents' calling ranges is probably a small enough factor to ignore.

Again, arguments that say that +EV plays are incorrect are inherently wrong by definition of EV, with the notable but hopefully atopical exception of gambler's ruin. Don't play above your bankroll, and squeeze as much EV out of your play as possible.

[jedinite]

[ QUOTE ]
This is very incorrect. +EV is +EV is +EV.

[/ QUOTE ] Avoiding .5+$EV now for >.5$EV tomorrow if we can only make one of the two is also very much a truth.

So what's really being said here (I think) is that more widespread knowledge of the pushbot strategy (and/or frequent losening of calling standards by people who've seen you push three of the last four hands) might change what ICM calculates as a +$EV play to a -$EV play based on the revised calling standards - or that sometimes pushing a very small +$EV play is incorrect.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]

I offer you a dice game. You pay $10 to play. On a roll of 1-5 you win $3. On a roll of six you lose. Good bet? But you have to roll the dice 15 times before you can collect and if you roll a six you lose all your winnings and your $10 entry. Still a good bet? How many required rolls would make this a good game for you? Or if you have to roll the dice 15 times how high does the +EV on each roll have to be to make it a good game?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a good example. Sometimes you are called and win, which your example does not factor in. Sometimes you are called and lose, but you cover your opponent so you don't lose everything.

Part of the EV of making pushing things like K5o in the SB is that sometimes you will get called by A8o and suck out, your equity in the pot is not just FE.

Edit: of course, if you don't think that ICM accurately reflects the expected value of your chips, then obviously you can argue with the $EV numbers. But as long as you have a sufficient bankroll, while of course you will have downswings from when you lose showdowns from making +$EV decisions, in the long run you will make money.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, arguments that say that +EV plays are incorrect are inherently wrong by definition of EV, with the notable but hopefully atopical exception of gambler's ruin. Don't play above your bankroll, and squeeze as much EV out of your play as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about situations where there is an expected greater +EV event in the near future, like the proverbial coinflip example in TPFAP?

[applejuicekid]

[ QUOTE ]
If the bubble pushbot strategy turns in to people routinely calling with top 50% the whole strategy will have to be rethought

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong, but I think this is incorrect. Calling with the top 50% is not how to defend proper bubble play. I do not think they are doing this at higher levels. Someone please correct if I am wrong.

[BadMongo]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is quite a bit of confusion and misunderstanding regarding ICM and its use in analyzing SNG situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, as is evidenced by this post. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Can the games be beaten by pushing every time the push-o-meter says +0.5%EV?

[/ QUOTE ]

My buddy and I had the same question . He went to a 10 SNL and tested this question to the extreme. He used basic random hand selections for pushing. I watched and laughed so hard I nearly wet myself but it did yield some interesting results. Only done it 3 times to date but here are the numbers:
Preflop push 90%
Preflop call 6%
Preflop fold 4%
He finished ITM in 2 of the 3 (1st and 3rd). He was called preflop an average of about 20%. Post flop pushes were called about 40%. Due to the limited attempts no real data can be extracted but I did note that he was called preflop 20% and half of these were SB desperation all ins at late levels. No doubt this method of play would be a long term loser but I was stunned by how shell shocked the opposition was. I can't help but think the call % would be even significantly lower in the 109's? Due to the cost I don't see us performing this experiment anytime soon, but it would interesting?

[jwesty5]

[ QUOTE ]
If the bubble pushbot strategy turns in to people routinely calling with top 50% the whole strategy will have to be rethought. Are we there yet? Not at the $22 and $33 where I play right now, for sure. Certainly not at the $11. Higher levels headed there soon? Maybe...

[/ QUOTE ]

I routinely see people calling with top 50% hands at the 11's. Sometimes worse than that.

[ZeroPointMachine]

[ QUOTE ]
This is very incorrect. +EV is +EV is +EV. The one point that you hinge on that's correct is that a push could be +EV on a specific hand but then widen calling ranges on later hands, which would lessen your ability to push. However, as most correct bubble pushes are very blatantly +EV, given that you're not playing against a complete maniac, you're unlikely to run into a situation in which one close bubble decision closely follows another. Thus, slighty widening your opponents' calling ranges is probably a small enough factor to ignore.



Again, arguments that say that +EV plays are incorrect are inherently wrong by definition of EV, with the notable but hopefully atopical exception of gambler's ruin. Don't play above your bankroll, and squeeze as much EV out of your play as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you say push every +0.01%$EV situation every time. Why wait till it's at least >0.5%?

This is the whole point of my post. These are not strict +EV individual trials (i.e. blackjack).

[Nicholasp27]

this isn't what we are talking about

not talking about random hand selections, but ones that are +ev according to ICM based on chip stacks, blinds, villian's calling range and your hand

Understood but villians calling range has a significant impact on +ev calculations. Assigning a calling range with any degree of accuracy to an unknown opponent based on play observation at a SNL is a crapshoot. What I was pointing out was even though everyone at the table clearly knew the pushes were complete BS hands they only called in effect 10-15% until they were forced in by their own chip stacks.

[ewing55]

One thing I think that is being overlooked is that if you are pushing a lot (every +.0001%$EV) your opponents calling range is going to increase which will have an effect on the the future calculations. (ie. The more often I push, the more often I expect to be called %-wise and I will tighten up my pushing hand range.)

The opposite is also true. If I am being dealt crap cards on the bubble for a while, I'll push anything because I know everyone else is thinking "OMG, he plays soooo scared and if he's pushing he must have AA!" At times I can almost see my opponets looking at their JJ or AKs and still folding.

If your input of hand ranges is correct, you should always take any decent (+.05%%EV) situation.

Of course I could be wrong.

--------------Jeff

[ZeroPointMachine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, arguments that say that +EV plays are incorrect are inherently wrong by definition of EV, with the notable but hopefully atopical exception of gambler's ruin. Don't play above your bankroll, and squeeze as much EV out of your play as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about situations where there is an expected greater +EV event in the near future, like the proverbial coinflip example in TPFAP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. If you push 10BB because it is +0.6% you risk losing and missing better opportunities later in the tourney. I know I've used the term risk of ruin kind of out of context. I'm not talking about bank roll risk of ruin in the normal context. I'm talking about losing a single tourney buyin risk of ruin.

[Slim Pickens]

One of the primary assumptions in the ICM is that all players are equally skilled. Obviously, we know this isn't exactly true. There are ways to correct for this, though I don't think they've been fully developed yet. By setting a necessary edge (0.5% or whatever), you're accounting for some skill difference with a guess, and depending on how skilled you are, your edge may need to be different than whatever eastbay picked.

The second thing you found is also a necessary condition of the ICM. There is no accounting for position or blind increases. Passing up a +$EV opportunity now may allow you to take an even better one later. Adjusting the cutoff based on stack size, future blind increases, and other factors is a good way to correct for this.

I did a simulation of taking random coin flips to build a stack. I found that 62% (I think) was the number I needed to finish ITM 40% of the time in a standard Party format. There's probably a way to back out a necessary $EV edge that implies.

[ZeroPointMachine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I offer you a dice game. You pay $10 to play. On a roll of 1-5 you win $3. On a roll of six you lose. Good bet? But you have to roll the dice 15 times before you can collect and if you roll a six you lose all your winnings and your $10 entry. Still a good bet? How many required rolls would make this a good game for you? Or if you have to roll the dice 15 times how high does the +EV on each roll have to be to make it a good game?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a good example. Sometimes you are called and win, which your example does not factor in. Sometimes you are called and lose, but you cover your opponent so you don't lose everything.

Part of the EV of making pushing things like K5o in the SB is that sometimes you will get called by A8o and suck out, your equity in the pot is not just FE.

Edit: of course, if you don't think that ICM accurately reflects the expected value of your chips, then obviously you can argue with the $EV numbers. But as long as you have a sufficient bankroll, while of course you will have downswings from when you lose showdowns from making +$EV decisions, in the long run you will make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I admit the example over simplifies things. The point was that push/fold decisions are not independent trials.

Say you have a huge series of independant trials. You divide this series into groups of any size. The sum of the results for each group will be equal to the sum of the whole series.

SNG pushes don't work this way. Because one negative result can erase several previous positive ones. The size of the groups matters.

Nobody advocates pushing every +0.1%$EV hand. Why? Because there are so many. You would be involved in so many hands with a small advantage that you almost guarantee losing one of them.

Everybody accepts that +0.5% is good enough to push. But why?

Every tourney involves a string of +$EV push/fold situations. I am trying to quantify the length of the string.

If you have X BB you are likely to see Y number of +$EV situations. How high does +$EV need to be to belong in the string?

[Slim Pickens]

I thought the whole point of the ICM was to turn chip EV into $EV so that the hands could be treated as independent trails. You are right in that SNG pushes don't work this way, but I think that's only if you use cEV instead of $EV. Of course, all of this is limited to the validity of the ICM's assumptions, but that's where the necessary $EV edge comes in, and why SNGPT spits out "both are good" for close decisions.

[BadMongo]

The only way I can see folding a +EV push being correct is if one of the assumptions of the model doesn't approximate the situation satisfactorly. So let's look at these assumptions:

1) Skill level.

ICM assumes all players are of equal skill. This is a big assumption, and is rarely applicable in a literal sense. Most of the time (hopefully) we will be more skilled than the people we play against. Thus, passing on a slightly +EV situation can be correct since we are minimizing our chances of going broke and affording our opponents more oppertunities to make mistakes. This can result in greater +EV situations later on. Although ICM can't directly quantify this effect, we can approximate it by using rules like eastbay's >0.5%.

2) Position and blind size.

ICM ignores who will be in the blinds on later hands, and when the blinds are going up. As a result, calculations will overstate your EV of pushing the further you are from the blinds, and it will understate it the closer you are. Similarly, if the blinds are increasing soon, ICM will understate the EV of a push. These factors only really become a problem when there are one or more very short stacks (i.e. only a couple BBs or less). If there are no very short stacks, this effect is negligible and can be ignored. Even if there are very short stacks, you can estimate your actual EV by discounting your equity appropriately.

3) Hand Ranges.

Well, you have to put your opponent(s) on a range to calculate your EV, and this is where most of the debate arises. Part of the difficulty of doing this somes from the fact that hand ranges are dynamic. As the game progresses, hand ranges change based on many factors like blind size, push frequency, tilting opponents, etc. Most of the time it's impossible to know your opponents' true range in a particular situation, but this is where skill and experience come in. Your read of an opponent's hand range is just part of the data ICM uses to tell you your EV. If your assumption about an opponent's range doesn't approximate the situation satisfactorly, that isn't a problem with the model, it's a problem with your reads.

I think if you're going to say "well, ICM says this is +EV, but you should fold anyway", you need to justify your position by showing which of these assumptions has been violated, and why it might in fact be -EV to push even though ICM says otherwise.

[ZeroPointMachine]

Thanks for the well thought out post.

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, passing on a slightly +EV situation can be correct since we are minimizing our chances of going broke and affording our opponents more oppertunities to make mistakes. This can result in greater +EV situations later on. Although ICM can't directly quantify this effect, we can approximate it by using rules like eastbay's >0.5%.



[/ QUOTE ]

Don't misunderstand this post as an "ICM doesn't work and that's why I can't win" post. ICM has been a tremendous tool and I have been very successful using it. I have been playing at the 20s much longer than my bankroll dictates and have a 25% ROI over 1000 games.

At this level I feel that the factor you listed above is much greater (on average) than the 0.5% fudge factor. This is especially true when you are on the high end of the 10BB range and are risking elimination. I think many people know this intuitivly and don't go into "pure ICM mode" until they are below 8BB. At the higher buy-ins, as the skill levels become closer, this discrepancy probably diminishes.

This is what I am trying to quantify.

I know it will be buy-in dependant. But I think some analysis of how many ICM pushes are made in a typical SNG and the chance of being eliminated somewhere along the way should yield a better guideline than +0.5% is goot enough.

I believe a sliding scale based on stacksize could be developed.

Wish my programming skills weren't 15 years out of date.

[ QUOTE ]
sometimes pushing a very small +$EV play is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong by definition. We play poker to get as much EV as possible.

+EV is good. +EV is good. +EV is good.

That's it (except for gamblers' ruin).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, arguments that say that +EV plays are incorrect are inherently wrong by definition of EV, with the notable but hopefully atopical exception of gambler's ruin. Don't play above your bankroll, and squeeze as much EV out of your play as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]


What about situations where there is an expected greater +EV event in the near future, like the proverbial coinflip example in TPFAP?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a -EV play. Making a play that gives you +EV now at the sacrifice of EV later can certainly be negative.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I offer you a dice game. You pay $10 to play. On a roll of 1-5 you win $3. On a roll of six you lose. Good bet? But you have to roll the dice 15 times before you can collect and if you roll a six you lose all your winnings and your $10 entry. Still a good bet? How many required rolls would make this a good game for you? Or if you have to roll the dice 15 times how high does the +EV on each roll have to be to make it a good game?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a good example. Sometimes you are called and win, which your example does not factor in. Sometimes you are called and lose, but you cover your opponent so you don't lose everything.

Part of the EV of making pushing things like K5o in the SB is that sometimes you will get called by A8o and suck out, your equity in the pot is not just FE.

Edit: of course, if you don't think that ICM accurately reflects the expected value of your chips, then obviously you can argue with the $EV numbers. But as long as you have a sufficient bankroll, while of course you will have downswings from when you lose showdowns from making +$EV decisions, in the long run you will make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I admit the example over simplifies things. The point was that push/fold decisions are not independent trials.

Say you have a huge series of independant trials. You divide this series into groups of any size. The sum of the results for each group will be equal to the sum of the whole series.

SNG pushes don't work this way. Because one negative result can erase several previous positive ones. The size of the groups matters.

Nobody advocates pushing every +0.1%$EV hand. Why? Because there are so many. You would be involved in so many hands with a small advantage that you almost guarantee losing one of them.

Everybody accepts that +0.5% is good enough to push. But why?

Every tourney involves a string of +$EV push/fold situations. I am trying to quantify the length of the string.

If you have X BB you are likely to see Y number of +$EV situations. How high does +$EV need to be to belong in the string?

[/ QUOTE ]


What you seem to be repeatedly saying is that there's something more than EV that you're playing for. If your only goal in playing poker is to make money (which is an assumption that I think should be assumed by this forum), you should make +EV plays.

Example: if you offer me 1-1 on a coin flip when I know that the coin is slightly weighted towards heads, I'll take the bet at some amount such that I'll be able to take the swings, and I'll take it repeatedly. I'll even take it double or nothing, until it gets so large that it's unreasonable to make the bet relative to my bankroll.

Your independent trials argument holds some weight, but not in the way you make it. Again, the fact that these are not independent trials means that pushing one hand widens your opponents' calling ranges on the next hand. This should be factored into your decisions (and might be the justification for the arbitrary cutoff point in SnGPT). However, it's an extremely weak effect because most pushes are still pushes even against large calling ranges.

Also, this effect has most of it's significance when your push makes others fold (A called all in tends to change things a lot on the bubble, so these small changes aren't nearly as significant as the other things that may happen... you may be out.. you may be ITM... there may now be a crippled stack.. you may now have a crippled stack, etc.). Since a push that makes everyone else fold wins you the blinds, losing FE on the next hand doesn't matter much (as long as you acknowledge it in your thought process) because it can't on average cost you more than the blinds (Think about why this is if you don't understand it. It's rather annoying to explain but I'm 110% sure that it's true).

Please don't laugh at EV. Two cents of EV is two cents as far as anyone here should be concerned.

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the well thought out post.

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, passing on a slightly +EV situation can be correct since we are minimizing our chances of going broke and affording our opponents more oppertunities to make mistakes. This can result in greater +EV situations later on. Although ICM can't directly quantify this effect, we can approximate it by using rules like eastbay's >0.5%.



[/ QUOTE ]

Don't misunderstand this post as an "ICM doesn't work and that's why I can't win" post. ICM has been a tremendous tool and I have been very successful using it. I have been playing at the 20s much longer than my bankroll dictates and have a 25% ROI over 1000 games.

At this level I feel that the factor you listed above is much greater (on average) than the 0.5% fudge factor. This is especially true when you are on the high end of the 10BB range and are risking elimination. I think many people know this intuitivly and don't go into "pure ICM mode" until they are below 8BB. At the higher buy-ins, as the skill levels become closer, this discrepancy probably diminishes.

This is what I am trying to quantify.

I know it will be buy-in dependant. But I think some analysis of how many ICM pushes are made in a typical SNG and the chance of being eliminated somewhere along the way should yield a better guideline than +0.5% is goot enough.

I believe a sliding scale based on stacksize could be developed.

Wish my programming skills weren't 15 years out of date.

[/ QUOTE ]

Realize that the skill advantage goes down significantly as the blinds increase. Thus, when pushing time comes around it is very small. This is one of the reasons why most of us play tightly early.

[derdo]

$EV is $EV. That's right but what OP is trying to say is there is no way you can calculate the expected value of a move in SNG even if you knew everyone's hands.
You can estimate it with ICM (or with some other model or by guessing) but it is just a model. For some chip distributions it works fine but sometimes it is way off.

So the point is, insisting on a play only because ICM or another model says $EV=+$0.02 for some calling range of the opponent is not wise.
You are right, you should never pass up +$EV if there is 0 risk of ruin. However, calculating the exact $EV is impossible in SNGs. I think this was the real point of OP and I agree with it 100%.

In OP's coinflip example it is possible to calculate the exact $EV so if it is +$EV you should take it. It is not a very good example to suppport the real point.

Again, the $EV calculation we make for SNG tourneys using either ICM or another method are biased and based on assumptions about how opponents play and are approximations at best.

So, one can argue passing a +$EV move in a SNG. Because whatever method you use to calculate $EV of a play in a SNG it will still be an estimate at best.

[golfcchs]

What about the idea that if two people go all in pre flop there combined ev goes down while the rest of the tables ev goes up?vNot sure if this is exactly true, but remember something like this being said some where before.

[golfcchs]

I think I agree with the OP here. Let’s see if this example helps to illustrate the point

Lets say hypothetically you are four handed on the bubble and lets say every time it is folded to you IMC says its a .1% $EV push. Now to get in the money you believe you will need to make 20 of these .1% $EV pushes, but if you loose one of these you will bust out. Now is it profitable to make this 20 .1% $EV pushes, or is should you wait for better $EV spots because you will probably not be able to make 20 pushes without loosing one of them. I know this is an extreme situation, but I think this is the general idea the OP is trying to make. If you have to make x amount of small $EV pushes without loosing a single one could it be possible better to wait for a more + $EV push so you do not have to avoid busting out so many times.

I may be way off base here, but I think this is the general idea the OP is trying to make. If I am is there some flaw in my thinking that I'm not seeing?

[BadMongo]

Along with the OP, you seem to be confusing cEV with $EV. $EV takes into consideration the chance that you will bust when pushing. If this chance is significant, the equity you gain by winning will have to be huge to offset that chance. Likewise, if you gain little equity by pushing and winning, your chances of surviving the push must be very high.

Let me give you a counter example to illustrate this.

Suppose we are playing a 50+5 and it's 4 handed. Everyone has equal stacks of t2500, blinds are 15/30. Your opponents are a bunch of pussies who are scared to go out in 4 and will only call an open push by you if they hold AA. You have 22 UTG and (stupidly) push all-in because you calculated that pushing here is +0.1% $EV (which it is... you can plug the numbers into SGA to see for yourself).

Now, let's suppose, as in your example, that you expect to be confronted with 20 or so +0.1% $EV pushes like this one. Your argument is that you should fold these borderline +EV situations because the chance of busting in one of them is too great. This is wrong, because ICM has already taken this into account.

Your chances of simply picking up the blinds when your opponents will only call with AA is huge - 98.5% in this case. So you are only called 1.5% of the time, and furthermore, 22 will only lose against AA 81.5% of the time. So you only bust out (1.5% x 81.5%) = 1.2% of the time you push. Therefore, you chances of busting over the entire string of 20 pushes is 1 - (98.8%)^20 = 21.5%, and that's assuming you lose back any chips you pick up during that string of pushes.

The moral of the story is that a low +$EV situation does not necessarily mean it is a high "risk-of-ruin" play. Unlike cEV, $EV considers your chances of busting and the effect that has on your prize equity.

[golfcchs]

I some what agree with you on this, but I believe the OP is saying the IMC is not perfect and could leading you to -$EV by taking lots of very small $EV pushes. I do not necessarily agree with this I just think it should be looked into more.

As for you example could you not have low $EV push with a high chance of busting if you hold a terrible hand and opponent has loose range. Like 32o and loose calling range of opponent. I do think IMC is a great tool, but think it is over valued sometimes on this forum.

[BadMongo]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the OP is saying the IMC is not perfect and could leading you to -$EV by taking lots of very small $EV pushes

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes no sense. Your average gain in EV is simply the sum of all those small +EV pushes. If they are all positive, you can they sum to a negative number?

[ QUOTE ]
As for you example could you not have low $EV push with a high chance of busting if you hold a terrible hand and opponent has loose range. Like 32o and loose calling range of opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. I was just trying to illustrate the fact that a small +EV push, or even many small +EV pushes, does not necessarily imply a high risk of busting out.

[ QUOTE ]
I do think IMC is a great tool, but think it is over valued sometimes on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree completely. If anything, ICM is undervalued. If you mean it is misused sometimes, then yes, I agree, but when ICM is applied properly it is a very powerful tool.

[AliasMrJones]

Look, +real-prizepool-money-dollars-EV is not the same thing as +chip-EV. I think some people are confusing what ICM does. It models your share of the prize pool, not the chips. Something that gets you a bigger share of the prize pool (real money dollars) can never be a bad thing.

The assumptions about calling ranges for remaining players is crucial to the model and if players are widening their calling ranges because you're pushing too much that will affect the outcome, but ICM lets you make that adjustment. The fact is, though, if you are following ICM, your pushes are dictated by a number of factors and you will be pusing less the farther from the SB you get. And/or you will eventually be called and either double up or bust out. ICM is not just modeling your fold equity, it is modeling your total equity so even when you're called it isn't a bad thing. You will be ahead and win sometimes and you will be behind and suck out sometimes and double up. In any case your real-prizemoney-equity will go up. You do want a bigger share of the prizemoney, right?

You can certainly question the assumptions or the model itself, but I don't think people use it as a crutch or lean on it too heavily. In fact, I think just the opposite. Not enough SnG players get as much out of it as they could. (In fact, most SnG players don't use it at all...)

[ZeroPointMachine]

I'd like to thank everybody for the great input.

I'm not afraid of being wrong or admitting it. I get learned good that way.

Today I got learned real good.

My argument for passing small +$EV situations for better ones later is completly false.

Other than special circumstances that ICM cannot calculate (i.e. blinds increasing or tiny stacks)the only argument for passing on marginally +$EV situations is the difficulty in making these calculations perfectly. A small change in calling ranges can change some plays from +$EV to -$EV. In these cases it can be argued that you can't be sure it is positive and there is nothing wrong with passing it up.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't play above your bankroll, and squeeze as much EV out of your play as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]Isn't it possible that you can expect to be given better EV situations later?

You and I play heads up. First hand I show you AQ of clubs and go all-in. You hold 6d6s. Do you call? Calling has positive expectation, but probably not nearly as much as merely getting me to sit down at the table with you.

Anyway, I think there is an opportunity cost that is not factored into EV calculations.

[Nicholasp27]

1) if u push many times in a row, u'll need to change villian's calling range, which will change the hands that make it +ev

2) .1% shouldn't be used, as there should be a more +ev point before the tourney is over



all tourney long, we make decisions every hand which have some + or - $ev attached to them (we can't calculate the +/- $ev of every hand in a tourney right now) and if u add all of those up, u hope it's a positive number...

well say it's the bubble and all of your moves have actually added up to -$0.40 If you push a +$0.10 hand and get called and bust, you leave the tourney having lost money...But if you forgoe this +$0.10 push, then you are now at -$0.50...if the next hand you get a +$0.60 push, then it's better that you pushed that rather than get impatient and push the +$0.10, as even if you bust, at least you end up better than with the +$0.10 push

we can't calculate the ev of every move you made during the tourney, so we can ignore all of the previous moves and just focus on maximizing $ev once we can calculate it (when <10bb and people fold or push to you)...go through tournaments in the software and add up your moves from all of the hands that can be calculated...in a game, use your judgement on whether u think that the total would be higher if u push your current hand and risk busting or if you wait for a higher ev hand




anyway, ICM is a model, but you have to use discretion in whether or not you think there will be a better place to push and whether or not you have villian's calling range correct...also, you may think ICM is underestimating the +ev of a push due to the fact that blinds go up next hand...lots of factors can make our application of ICM for a given hand wrong, even if the tool is accurate and the math correct

[Nicholasp27]

[ QUOTE ]
I some what agree with you on this, but I believe the OP is saying the IMC is not perfect and could leading you to -$EV by taking lots of very small $EV pushes.

[/ QUOTE ]

as long as you correctly compensate for the fact that you took those small edge pushes, then pushing every small $EV will yield a positive number

the problem comes from

a) not changing opp range accurately to reflect their new standards based on previous hands
b) sure it is a + number, but is it the most positive you could have had? you may not be maximizing your ev if you take every small edge


but remember, if u pass up a +.2 ev push, then you have to subtract that from your running total...i can fold 10 +.2 ev hands in a row and then get a +1.5 ev hand due to higher blinds and my now lowered stack (and maybe better hand as well) but that totals to -.5 total...so i should have taken some of those +.2 ev hands

so that's why +.5 is a pretty decent number...it's hard to get a hand +ev enough to overcome 5+ passes on >+.5 pushes

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
well say it's the bubble and all of your moves have actually added up to -$0.40 If you push a +$0.10 hand and get called and bust, you leave the tourney having lost money...But if you forgoe this +$0.10 push, then you are now at -$0.50...if the next hand you get a +$0.60 push, then it's better that you pushed that rather than get impatient and push the +$0.10, as even if you bust, at least you end up better than with the +$0.10 push

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I think you are confusing real-money EV with chip EV. What you say above might be true of tournament chip EV, but it can't possibly be true of real-money-prize-pool EV.

ICM (or at least SnGPT) takes into account your prize money equity if you fold, your prize money equity if you push and everyone folds, your prize money equity if you push, get called and win and your prize money equity if you push, get called and lose and weights each according to how often each of those outcomes is going to occur. If it says it is worth 2% more of the prize pool if you push than if you fold, having taken into account all of those things, then you gain 2% more of the prize pool if you push and you do not if you fold. That 2% doesn't come back. There is no I get more +$EV from a later decision so I'll forgo this one. ICM has already taken into account the situation if you fold and based on all of the outcomes/probabilities has determined that it is worth 2% more of the prize pool to push here than to fold. Period. End of story. The assumptions input could be wrong and the ICM model itself might have flaws, but assuming you believe the assumptions and the model are good, fold and try for a push later is already in the model and the model says it is worth more to push here than to fold and try for a push later.

Later on you might get an even more +$EV situation. But, that is an independent situation. Yes, if you had pushed earlier and lost you might be out and not able to take advantage of this opportunity, but, again, ICM/SnGPT in effect took this possibility into account by virtue of the ICM model and determined it was worth more real money to push at the earlier point.

Tournament-chip-EV is not equal to prize-pool-EV. The more +real-prize-pool-dollar-EV situations you take advantage of, the more real-prize-pool-money you will win in the long term. Period.

[Nicholasp27]

no, i'm not confusing the two...i'm talking purely prize pool, not chips...i'm just thinking about it differently

and read your last statement: " The more +real-prize-pool-dollar-EV situations you take advantage of, the more real-prize-pool-money you will win in the long term. Period."

exactly

if u pass up a +$0.20 push and then get a +$0.50 push and take that, then you followed your last statement and made more money...

and i know that .2 doesn't come back, which is why i subtracted it from my running total

if u push a .2% ev hand then the next hand may end up being 0% or -.1 or +.1 ev due to the looser calling range of villian, whereas it would have been +.5 if u had folded the .2% ev...

this isn't probability theory with independent trials...what u do one hand DOES affect the next...not the cards but villian's actions...

u can't just push every +.1% ev situation with impunity unless you can be >99.9% accurate in your assessment of villian's exact calling range based on previous hands (and not just prior hand, but whole tourney, how his other table he has open just tilted him or how his g/f coming over makes him a maniac so he can go get some, etc...u can NEVER predict opp's calling range with 99.9%+ accuracy, so therefore u may not want to take every +.1% ev push, as you aren't accurate enough to know that +.1 isn't a -.3

u also don't know the future so u don't know if the sum of folding this hand + pushing next hand > or < pushing this hand and pushing/folding next hand

i don't have sngpt on this comp, but it'd be pretty easy to come up with an example where you have a +.1 ev push and then show the next hand where if u had pushed that +.1, then it's <ev than if u had folded that previous +.1 hand

[The once and future king]

If you had an +.5%EV push but knew your next hand would be a +1.5%EV opportunity you would obvioulsy not take the first one due to the when you are broke you are done principle.

Early on in the tourney one may pass small +EV situations because one expects to have greater EV situations later and does not want to risk the opportunity to take those EV situations . Once we are on the bubble though suddenly we must take any EV situation however small?????

Obviously other factors are important before pushing on the bubble other than the mere existance of a +EV situation.

[HesseJam]

This is a very good discussion.

The way I see it:

The OP certainly has a point that push decisions cannot be viewed as independent coinflips. The EV of a push under a given assumption of calling ranges of your opponent is the EV from Eastbays tool + the difference between the EVs of future push decisions when you did push your hand before and when you didn't (good luck calculating this!).

Moreover, I also have the feeling that the 0.5% threshhold is set arbitrarily. One could ask why at all having a threshhold? The only justification I could see is that you should avoid a coinflip because you can do better than that.
How can you do better than a coinflip? Because you play better than your opponents and you should not go below your edge. So, I think that this should be the major variable for setting the threshhold: If you are in a game where your opponents make many mistakes you should take your time and wait for the better opportunities, thus the threshhold should be higher (but how much?). If you feel your competition as just as good as you (or even better) you could (should) take the coinflip.

Raptor is right that playing a certain hand right culminates in getting right the calling ranges of your opponents. But he is only almost there. You have to factor in what your decision will mean to the future calling ranges and how this will affect your EV on your future weighted average decisions. If opponents loosen up, your average EV will very often go down which means that if you stay with the threshhold you will have less situations where you can push for profit.

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
no, i'm not confusing the two...i'm talking purely prize pool, not chips...i'm just thinking about it differently

and read your last statement: " The more +real-prize-pool-dollar-EV situations you take advantage of, the more real-prize-pool-money you will win in the long term. Period."

exactly

if u pass up a +$0.20 push and then get a +$0.50 push and take that, then you followed your last statement and made more money...

and i know that .2 doesn't come back, which is why i subtracted it from my running total

if u push a .2% ev hand then the next hand may end up being 0% or -.1 or +.1 ev due to the looser calling range of villian, whereas it would have been +.5 if u had folded the .2% ev...

[/ QUOTE ]

But, here's the problem with the above...you're assuming you're going to GET that higher +$EV situation later. SnGPT has ALREADY taken that into account with the ICM model and determined that it is worth more prize money equity to take this opportunity now than to fold and hopefully get a better opportunity later. That is the entire basis for the ICM model. What is my prize money equity based on the current stack sizes. You might get a more +$EV situation later...you might not...you might get a more +$EV situation later and lose. ICM models these various chances and comes up with prize money equity.

If you push 10 hands in a row the ICM model doesn't change. What does change is the calling range of your opponents. That is a different issue. One hand affects the actions of your opponents, but not the model. You can change the input parameters to account for this. In that sense you are right about your actions now affecting future outcomes. A push now could widen opponents calling range.

But, that is a separate matter. The idea that you can pass up a smaller +$EV situation now so that you will survive to take advantage of a larger +$EV situation later is already accounted for as part of the ICM model and is therefore already factored into the current +$EV differential between pushing and folding. So, the notion that you can do that is illogical.

The model doesn't account for player skillz, though. It assumes each player will get equal +$EV opportunities over time, which is true. But, your opponents may not take equal advantage of these opportunities. If your opponents, do not take advantage of their +$EV opportunities, I think it would make sense to use a higher threshold. SnGPT already uses +.05 as the threshold. It might be worth discussing what threshold is appropriate for opponents who play incorrectly, like often limping or raising 3xBB with <10xBB, for instance.

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
Raptor is right that playing a certain hand right culminates in getting right the calling ranges of your opponents. But he is only almost there. You have to factor in what your decision will mean to the future calling ranges and how this will affect your EV on your future weighted average decisions. If opponents loosen up, your average EV will very often go down which means that if you stay with the threshhold you will have less situations where you can push for profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent, excellent summation and something that is very difficult to model, but would be an excellent addition to the current state-of-the-art ICM model (which includes more than just ICM, but all the extra stuff that eastbay has packed into SnGPT) if we could come up with something reasonable.

[Nicholasp27]

it's not just a threshold based on skill level tho...u can be a +5% on a total donk, but u shouldn't wait for a +5% edge, as you will get blinded out before that likely comes along (or it comes along when u have 1bb and so u just go up to 2bb if u win the coinflip)

the +.5% is set to help guard u from pushing too often (loosening up villian's calling ranges too much and too unpredictably) and to compensate for skill edge without causing u to fold yourself out of the tournament

based on play (limited sample size) it seems that +.5% is a good number as long as you exercise caution and don't take it as the gospel due to uncertainty in villian's calling ranges, how your actions affect future actions, etc

if it was higher, then my experience tells me that you'd get blinded out of the tourney too much...or at the very least, your positioning going into itm would lead you to lots of 3rds and not so many 1sts

but if u push every .1/.2 edge u will ruin your FE and their ranges will open to a point where u may not get another +ev hand until you are very low in chips

so .5 is a good marker imo, although in some games you'd want to only push >.9 and some you wanna push >0

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
If you had an +.5%EV push but knew your next hand would be a +1.5%EV opportunity you would obvioulsy not take the first one due to the when you are broke you are done principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fallacy here is, "if you knew..." It's kind of like saying if you knew your aces would get cracked this hand, you shouldn't go all-in. The fact is, you don't know. ICM attempts to model this unknown. The fact that the ICM model says it is 1.5% +$EV here means that the model says it is worth more real money to take this opportunity here than to hopefully get a better one later.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously other factors are important before pushing on the bubble other than the mere existance of a +EV situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the bubble? I don't think so. This is the place where SnG prize pool money is won and lost. This is THE time push +$EV. What other factors are important?

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
That is the entire basis for the ICM model. What is my prize money equity based on the current stack sizes. You might get a more +$EV situation later...you might not...you might get a more +$EV situation later and lose. ICM models these various chances and comes up with prize money equity.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is totaly incorrect. ICM only calculates what your share of the prize pool will be after any specific push, it dosnt predict or factor in, in any way EV situations that may arise later. The Independent Chip Model is just a way to devise $EV from a given stack size.

[Nicholasp27]

we're still attacking this from different angles

imo, you want the most +ev plays possible throughout the bubble...

if u push 6 +.1/.2 ev spot, you may NEVER get a >+.5 ev push the entire bubble, so your average ev would not be as good as pushing the 3 >+.5 hands you got

i realize that icm takes into account you getting called and winning/losing/tying...but it doesn't take into account how what you do affects the next hand...sure u can change the ranges, but that's after the fact...each hand is NOT in a vacuum


take a random hand that sngpt says is +.7 with a tight opp...now change that opp to maniac...depending on the situation, that may change the hand from +.7 to -.3 ...that's a whole $1!...was it worth pushing for 10 cents the previous 2 hands if u have to pass up that $1?

[BadMongo]

Ok, your arguement is all over the place. I'm not really sure exactly what your are trying to say.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The more +real-prize-pool-dollar-EV situations you take advantage of, the more real-prize-pool-money you will win in the long term. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly

if u pass up a +$0.20 push and then get a +$0.50 push and take that, then you followed your last statement and made more money...

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you haven't. You only made +0.50 when you could have made +0.70. You still lose that +0.20 that you passed on.

[ QUOTE ]
u can't just push every +.1% ev situation with impunity unless you can be >99.9% accurate in your assessment of villian's exact calling range based on previous hands

[/ QUOTE ]

First you seem to be saying that you should pass on some +EV situations even if all ICM assumptions have been satisfied. That is clearly false, for reasons that have already been explained. Now you're changing your argument to say that you shouldn't push small edges because you can never be 100% confident of an opponent's calling range. This argument has more merit, but it's not a flaw with ICM, it's a flaw with the input data. If we calculate an EV with ICM based on a hand range that isn't applicable, that's our fault, not the model's.

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is the entire basis for the ICM model. What is my prize money equity based on the current stack sizes. You might get a more +$EV situation later...you might not...you might get a more +$EV situation later and lose. ICM models these various chances and comes up with prize money equity.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is totaly incorrect. ICM only calculates what your share of the prize pool will be after any specific push, it dosnt predict or factor in, in any way EV situations that may arise later. The Independent Chip Model is just a way to devise $EV from a given stack size.

[/ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY! It is a way to estimate $EV from a SET of stack sizes. How can it possibly estimate your share of the prize money at the end of the tournament unless it takes into account future possibilities? What may be confusing is it assumes that everyone will have equal +$EV opportunities in the future. On a long-term (and short-term probability) basis, this is correct. So it does factor in future possibilities by assuming that they will be equally spread across all players. What it doesn't do at present is factor in your opponents' ability to take advantage of their oppotunities vs. your ability to take advantage of your opportunities.

[Nicholasp27]

the existence of a +EV spot is just that...a spot...it's one hand...it's in a Vacuum...therefore if u think a push will loosen your opps' ranges then that is a Factor that should be taken into consideration that ICM does not currently do...therefore u need to do that...


a bot running off ICM in a game where there are 4 players, 800 chips each with blinds starting at 50/100 would NOT be the highest roi player over time if the other 4 used more factors than just +/- ev that ICM does...even if it did accurately change opp's ranges each hand...

why is icm not the only factor?

because it does NOT take into consideration future events...


DEFINITION OF ICM: if all else is equal (skill level, table image, etc) then given a set of chip stacks, it tells you what each stack's expected value is...how much that stack can expect to earn in prize money over the long run

thus it is a GREAT tool...best tool for SNGs, but it's NOT the only factor in the bubble


edit: edited definition of ICM

[Slim Pickens]

I'm fairly sure now that the only reason SNGPT uses threshold values (both positive and negative by the way if you keep track of all the signs and ask it "Should I push?") for decisions is that there is some amount of uncertainty created by your opponents' pushing/calling ranges and the limitation of the ICM wrt blinds/position and such. I was wrong to compare it Sklansky's argument about "taking larger edges later."

SlimP

[Nicholasp27]

no u don't make .70...after you pushed the +.2, the next hand's value is +.1 or even -.4...but if u fold the +.2 then u get +.5

to clarify my argument, even if u input everything perfectly into sngpt, you still should NOT push every +.1% ev hand...as sngpt cannot tell you that taking that +.1% push will change your next hand's ev by .6

i do have a side argument that you also shouldn't use .1% because you are not accurate enough with your inputs...thus that's why i like the .5% threshold as a guidepost instead of .1%...to help make up for your error

[BadMongo]

[ QUOTE ]
no u don't make .70...after you pushed the +.2, the next hand's value is +.1 or even -.4...but if u fold the +.2 then u get +.5

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know this? Why are you assuming that every push you make will decrease your EV oppertunities on future hands?

It could just as easily increase them. Suppose you have pushed the past three hands, then you pick up aces and push again. Is your EV going to be higher if you had folded those previous three hands?

[AliasMrJones]

I think it's been acknowledged by everyone that a push now (or, more accurately a series of pushes) can influence the future calling range of opponents and it would be great if we could factor that into the model. There, now we can finish with that part of the discussion.

Saying ICM does not factor in future events is hogwash. It is meant to PREDICT THE FUTURE. Predicting the future is ALL ABOUT FUTURE EVENTS. It models those future events. The model may not be accurate, but to say ICM does not take into account future events is silly.

ICM DOES NOT SAY, "If the tournament ended after this hand and prize money distributed by chips..." That would be a tournament chip equity = prize money equity model WHICH IS NOT WHAT ICM IS. In fact, ICM is supposed to predict prize money equity AT THE END OF THE TOURNAMENT better than the tournament chip equity = prize money equity model does.

I think you need to do some more research about ICM before you make any more statements about what it does and does not do because you clearly don't understand it.

[Nicholasp27]

exactly...u don't know...and neither does ICM...which is why u have to use JUDGEMENT to decide

my example was saying that u would pass up a +.2 for a +.5 if the fold/push was more total ev than push/whatever is...

thus there are times when it's better to pass up the +.2 edge...some are saying if u put in the right inputs into ICM and the model is accurate, then you should not pass up +.2 because there are no other important factors

i'm saying there are other important factors...my example shows the outcome of how the factors made going against ICM's vacuum hand a good thing...now it's up to us to decide what those factors are and how to account for them and thus incorporate ICM into our arsenal without using it as gospel

[Nicholasp27]

ok, it's not 100% in a vacuum...it does predict how much you should expect to win in the long run given equal skill levels with X number of chips vs Y number of chips vs Z number of chips...then takes into account your hand and your opps' calling ranges and does probability of X, Y, Z occurring and then tells u which move has the outcome of giving you the most equity after this hand, thus which move gives you more money in the long run with ALL ELSE EQUAL...but it's not equal...

it's wrong to say that icm tells u your expected equity if skill is even...it's more than if skill is even...it also depends on table image as well as skill...

if you push 27o with +.1 ev and get called, it takes that into account, but it doesn't take into account that your table image is now shot and the range opens up widely...

it doesn't take into account that if u steal someone's blind, the next time you push into their blind they may open up their range...even if it was just once...

it just cannot predict the future on its own, so your statement that there are no other important factors cannot be correct...even with 100% accurate inputs, sngpt still only does one hand...


icm may say that pushing gives you .23 equity and folding gives you .22 equity...but that does not mean u take it as gospel and push it

[ZeroPointMachine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Raptor is right that playing a certain hand right culminates in getting right the calling ranges of your opponents. But he is only almost there. You have to factor in what your decision will mean to the future calling ranges and how this will affect your EV on your future weighted average decisions. If opponents loosen up, your average EV will very often go down which means that if you stay with the threshhold you will have less situations where you can push for profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent, excellent summation and something that is very difficult to model, but would be an excellent addition to the current state-of-the-art ICM model (which includes more than just ICM, but all the extra stuff that eastbay has packed into SnGPT) if we could come up with something reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be the best point to come from this discussion. It's not where my brain was headed when I started but I like this idea.

Key factors in an ICM calculation are the size of the blinds
and your FE vs. villian's range. Large +$EV situations almost always involve large blinds. Most pushes involve the same 1 or 2 villians on your left.

So, you've pushed from SB into BB the last two orbits. Here you are again with a marginal(+.6%) push against his current range with 100-200 blinds. If you have a workable stacksize and you feel that pushing this hand will open villian's range drastically on future hands, can you argue that the lost FE in the future higher blinds out weighs the current slightly positive situation?

[BadMongo]

[ QUOTE ]
it's wrong to say that icm tells u your expected equity if skill is even...

[/ QUOTE ]

O rly?? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ QUOTE ]
if you push 27o with +.1 ev and get called, it takes that into account, but it doesn't take into account that your table image is now shot and the range opens up widely...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
it doesn't take into account that if u steal someone's blind, the next time you push into their blind they may open up their range...even if it was just once...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it does. Have you seen those hand range input boxes SGA has? you should use them.

[BadMongo]

This is an interesting point, but I can't imagine how you could quantify something like that.

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
it just cannot predict the future on its own, so your statement that there are no other important factors cannot be correct...even with 100% accurate inputs, sngpt still only does one hand...


icm may say that pushing gives you .23 equity and folding gives you .22 equity...but that does not mean u take it as gospel and push it

[/ QUOTE ]

On a side note -- How long is the bubble going to last? 10 hands? 15? 20? There just isn't much effect possible to your opponents on average in that period of time. Some effect? Maybe, but enough to justify much deviation from ICM? I don't think so.


OK, back to the main discussion...

Please, please, please read about ICM so you actually understand it before you post anything more. ICM PREDICTS THE FUTURE. IT USES A MODEL TO DO SO. THAT MODEL MAY NOT BE 100% ACCURATE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT ISN'T TAKING FUTURE ACTIONS INTO ACCOUNT.

I think we can agree that being dealt AA is the highest +EV situation one can get preflop. What is the chance that we'll be dealt AA on the next hand? Exactly the same as our opponents' chances. Extrapolate -- what is the chance we'll get a +$EV opportunity on the next hand -- exactly the same as our opponents'. What is the probability that we'll have more +$EV opportunites than our opponents' from now until the end of the tourney? Exactly the same as the chance they'll have more +$EV opportunities than us. (Assuming equal skill -- again a current weakness of ICM model as implemented in SnGPT.)

So, you see, ICM DOES take into account future possibilities. It does so by using the fact that on a long-term basis and on a short-term probability basis, everyone will be dealt the same hands and thus have the same opportunities. It then uses a chip=lottery ticket model to determine chances to win prize money, which also is taking into account future actions (i.e. 1 chip does not equal 1/X share of prize money where X is total chips in play).

Have I ever passed up a +$EV opportunity because of table image. Probably, yes. Is it often correct to do so? Even on average once per tournament? I doubt it.

[Nicholasp27]

yes, rly, imo...if everything is equal, then you all have .1 at the beginning of tourney...but that's not just if skill is equal...it's also if table image is equal...

say u sit down next to a 2+2er of exactly equal skill...your ev is the same on hand 1 as theirs...but if u know who they are and they don't know who u are, then you have higher ev than them if u use that info to your advantage...thus their table image has changed for u...

well in the bubble, if someone catches u pushing 27o, then your table image changes...likewise if u fold the hand, then you are seen as a lil tighter than if u push, so ur table image changes...this affects your future ev and ICM can't model that currently

if u agree that knowing the person and them not knowing u raises your ev, then you agree that table-image is a factor along with skill in determining your prize equity...again, icm is static and just gives you your expectation based on equal skill, equal table image, based on your input of stacks and ranges and cards that hand



and icm does NOT take into account how your actions this hand affect your future ev

it takes it into account THAT hand...based on your inputs

there is currently no model that states that "if you push this hand it will give you +x ev and will change the villian's range to y which will then lower the expected value of your next hand's ev by z"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't play above your bankroll, and squeeze as much EV out of your play as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]Isn't it possible that you can expect to be given better EV situations later?

You and I play heads up. First hand I show you AQ of clubs and go all-in. You hold 6d6s. Do you call? Calling has positive expectation, but probably not nearly as much as merely getting me to sit down at the table with you.

Anyway, I think there is an opportunity cost that is not factored into EV calculations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can always play HU with you again. If not, I'd fold (assuming you're actually worse than me). However, in the case of SnGs when you're not playing above your BR, you can play as many as you want and therefore this should not come into play.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Raptor is right that playing a certain hand right culminates in getting right the calling ranges of your opponents. But he is only almost there. You have to factor in what your decision will mean to the future calling ranges and how this will affect your EV on your future weighted average decisions. If opponents loosen up, your average EV will very often go down which means that if you stay with the threshhold you will have less situations where you can push for profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent, excellent summation and something that is very difficult to model, but would be an excellent addition to the current state-of-the-art ICM model (which includes more than just ICM, but all the extra stuff that eastbay has packed into SnGPT) if we could come up with something reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be the best point to come from this discussion. It's not where my brain was headed when I started but I like this idea.

Key factors in an ICM calculation are the size of the blinds
and your FE vs. villian's range. Large +$EV situations almost always involve large blinds. Most pushes involve the same 1 or 2 villians on your left.

So, you've pushed from SB into BB the last two orbits. Here you are again with a marginal(+.6%) push against his current range with 100-200 blinds. If you have a workable stacksize and you feel that pushing this hand will open villian's range drastically on future hands, can you argue that the lost FE in the future higher blinds out weighs the current slightly positive situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but again, the effect is very small.

[Nicholasp27]

it predicts the future based solely on EQUAL SKILL LEVELS and EQUIVALENT TABLE-IMAGE...

do u agree that if u sit down next to 8 donks and gigabet that icm is correct in saying that everybody's ev is .1?

if not, then skill and table-image matter

and skill is not static...if an action during the time of the tourney (on this table, another, or non-poker related) occurs to change someone's actions (tilt, etc) then skill levels change...another thing that changes is table-image...if u push 27o and get caught, even if u win the hand, your future ev has gone down


do you agree that if i push 27o and get caught...then the ev of my pushing kjo next hand is less than if i folded that 27o? if so, then u agree that table image matters

ICM is a static predictor of the future, not dynamic...and it makes 2 HUGE assumptions: skill level and table image are equal

yes, no matter ur skill level, it helps to get an extra .1 ev...but if it hurts your table image, then it may not be worth the .1



again: i realize icm predicts the future, but only based on chip stacks and blinds...not based on skill/table image...both of which can change dynamically from hand to hand

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
So, you've pushed from SB into BB the last two orbits. Here you are again with a marginal(+.6%) push against his current range with 100-200 blinds. If you have a workable stacksize and you feel that pushing this hand will open villian's range drastically on future hands, can you argue that the lost FE in the future higher blinds out weighs the current slightly positive situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree this is a very interesting topic and is very difficult to quantify. It is, unfortunately, not just the last few hands either. If someone has pushed UTG on my BB the last 3 times in a row (not 3 sequential hands in a row) that also tends to widen my calling range, for me quite a bit. ;-) To make it simple, perhaps there is a way to take previous X hands actions combined with current push = some widening of future calling range. I think, for the most part, the tighter our opponents are, the better as we can steal with a wider range of hands. So wider future calling ranges probably = smaller future +$EV.

Seems like it would be too hard to factor in much stuff manually so if the proggy were reading a hand history it could track things, but if doing it by hand, maybe a single table image number? The program could evaluate the impact of a push by assuming your image number goes down by some margin with every push and so tries to calculate the future $EV impact of this change? If you have a high table image number, impact isn't so big, but if your table image number is low, the change is greater. (Like if I push once there isn't much change (say 1 point), but each additional time a push is a large and larger change (like 2 points for the next push and 4 point for the one after that.) I think we're pretty much into wild ass guess territory at this point, though.

[Nicholasp27]

u'd also have a table image number of urself for each opp...if u've stolen bb's blinds the last 2 circuits, your table image for him is much smaller than for the other 2-3 players...

this will affect your future ev somewhat...how much? we don't know...but imo it's more than .1% in many instances

[BadMongo]

I don't understand why you are getting so hung up on table image... ICM accounts for table image through calling ranges.

When we use ICM to calculate the EV of a push/fold decision, there are only 2 actions our opponent can take against us if we push: 1) he can fold, or 2) he can call. Thus, our table image can ONLY affect our opponents' decisions by swaying them either towards a fold or towards a call. If it's the former, we tighten the opponent's range, and if it's the latter, we loosen it. So our table image has been incorporated into the model.

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
it predicts the future based solely on EQUAL SKILL LEVELS and EQUIVALENT TABLE-IMAGE...

do u agree that if u sit down next to 8 donks and gigabet that icm is correct in saying that everybody's ev is .1?

if not, then skill and table-image matter

and skill is not static...

again: i realize icm predicts the future, but only based on chip stacks and blinds...not based on skill/table image...both of which can change dynamically from hand to hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's really hard to discuss this with you because you keep changing your argument. You started off by saying it would be correct to pass up a +$EV opportunity for a greater +$EV opportunity later, which is clearly incorrect. Now, you are talking about factoring skill level and future table image into ICM.

Trying to factor skill level into ICM has already been discussed and agreed would be a nifty thing. I think trying to factor in impact on future table image would also be interesting.

However, the fact remains that a SnG is a very short period of time. How much impact your table image could possibly take during the period when ICM push/fold kicks in and the end of the tournament is probably not that great compared to the larger share of prize money you get from pushing when ICM says to push. (So, basically, I think there is a larger chance that you will overcompensate and lose prize money equity by folding when you really should be pushing than gain prize money equity by keeping your image up.)

These things are refinements and could have a small, but noticeable affect on ICM predictions. Given the short nature of push/fold play in a single SnG, I doubt the impact will be very large, however. Again, I would think less than 1 potentially changed decision per tournament on average.

[Nicholasp27]

ok, here is my understanding about ICM and SNGPT:

tell me which assumptions/statements are wrong


1) ICM takes the input of stack sizes of all players and the payout structure and outputs the expected prize equity that each stack has (predicts future)

2) ICM does not take into account blinds/skill/table image or anything other than stack sizes and payout structure

3) SNGPT uses ICM

4) SNGPT figures out the probability of occurences W, X, Y, Z: everyone folds to your push, people call you and you win, people call you and you tie, people call you and you fold

5) After doing #4, SNGPT plugs those resulting stack sizes into ICM to determine the equity in each of those scenarios

6) SNGPT then examines if ICM says your equity is higher if you fold or if you push based on probability of W/X/Y/Z occurring and their resulting ICM equity results

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
u'd also have a table image number of urself for each opp...if u've stolen bb's blinds the last 2 circuits, your table image for him is much smaller than for the other 2-3 players...

this will affect your future ev somewhat...how much? we don't know...but imo it's more than .1% in many instances

[/ QUOTE ]

No -- You don't care about your opponents table image. It has absolutely no impact on your prize money equity. Your push in no way affects your opponents future table image -- it only affects yours. Therefore you only have to track your table image. And the only real impact of your table image change is the change on opponents' calling ranges. Your opponents table image changing your calling range, again, doesn't matter.

[Nicholasp27]

it's incorporated into the model THAT hand

the next hand's ev is NOT in the model


do u agree with this statement:

if your action in hand X causes the opps' ranges to loosen in hand Y, then your ev will be less in hand Y than if you hadn't taken that action in hand X

if u agree, then do u agree that sometimes that difference in Y's ev can be more than .1? if so, then do u agree that it may be worth passing up a .1% ev move if it will affect your table image?



(and that's not even considering the fact that in real-world usage, you aren't accurate enough with your assessment of calling ranges to know that it really is + if it's +.1% ev)

[Nicholasp27]

table image of yourself for each opp

not talking about their numbers...saying that their number FOR YOU may vary from opp to opp

[Nicholasp27]

example:

i steal your blinds with pushes 2 circuits in a row

are you going to loosen up your range for calling my pushes?

do u think the guy to my left will loosen up his range as much as you will?

have u never seen players 'make a stand' against someone pushing their blinds? have u never seen players spite call?


my argument is that it matters who u pushed into...each player was effected differently by your pushes and folds...so they each have a different range against you

[BadMongo]

[ QUOTE ]
if your action in hand X causes the opps' ranges to loosen in hand Y, then your ev will be less in hand Y than if you hadn't taken that action in hand X

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't agree with this statement. I have already given an example where this would be false. You are confusing folding equity with EV.

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, here is my understanding about ICM and SNGPT:

tell me which assumptions/statements are wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

What is funny is you seem to be going back to previous posts you made and cleaning up inaccurate statements that you made.

You previously said (and I'm paraphrasing, but this is almost a qutoe), ICM says "If the tournament ended after this hand and prize money distributed by chips...". Of course, that post, now says something different. But, this was in your original post and clearly shows a misunderstanding of how ICM works. ICM does not say, "If the tournament ended after this hand and prize money distributed by chips..." That would be a chip equity=prize money equity model. It uses a chip as lottery ticket model, which is very different. It was, in fact, created to overcome limitations of the chip equity=prize money model.

Why are you going back and changing previous posts to match your now-changed story?

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
table image of yourself for each opp

not talking about their numbers...saying that their number FOR YOU may vary from opp to opp

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. I think that is getting too complicated. At that point the model is starting to become too cumbersome to use, I think. Trying to come up with a future table image factor might be doable. Trying to do it for every opponent is way to much work for what it is worth.

Again, I think the impact of this is quite small. Too small to put that much into trying to calculate.

[BadMongo]

[ QUOTE ]
my argument is that it matters who u pushed into...each player was effected differently by your pushes and folds...so they each have a different range against you

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? You can specify different ranges for different opponents for different hands.

[Nicholasp27]

exactly...u can't get accurate enough...so that's why we use our human judgement

the good players adjust on the fly


sometimes it's ok to push that +.1% ev spot

sometimes it's not

if u are pushing a +.1% ev spot with a9s, then that is different than pushing a +.1% ev spot with 27o...due to future calculations changing if u are called...

thus our argument that you should not just blindly push every +ev situation EVEN IF you have the inputs 100% accurate

[Nicholasp27]

i'm talking about your suggestion of one number to give value to your 'table image'

i'm saying that one number wouldn't be good enough

[Nicholasp27]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if your action in hand X causes the opps' ranges to loosen in hand Y, then your ev will be less in hand Y than if you hadn't taken that action in hand X

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't agree with this statement. I have already given an example where this would be false. You are confusing folding equity with EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't agree?

example:
i push your bb 2 circuits in a row

the 3rd circuit, i get a hand that icm says is +.1 ev after i've accurately input your range (i'm a mindreader)

on the 4th circuit, i get a hand and input your range from last time...it says i'm +.7ev...but i can read your mind and you are thinking you are calling with a wider range due to my stealing your blinds 3 times in a row...if i input that range into sngpt, it tells me i'm -.3ev

now was it better to push that 3rd time or was it better to fold the 3rd time and then push the 4th time?

[ZeroPointMachine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, you've pushed from SB into BB the last two orbits. Here you are again with a marginal(+.6%) push against his current range with 100-200 blinds. If you have a workable stacksize and you feel that pushing this hand will open villian's range drastically on future hands, can you argue that the lost FE in the future higher blinds out weighs the current slightly positive situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree this is a very interesting topic and is very difficult to quantify. It is, unfortunately, not just the last few hands either. If someone has pushed UTG on my BB the last 3 times in a row (not 3 sequential hands in a row) that also tends to widen my calling range, for me quite a bit. ;-) To make it simple, perhaps there is a way to take previous X hands actions combined with current push = some widening of future calling range. I think, for the most part, the tighter our opponents are, the better as we can steal with a wider range of hands. So wider future calling ranges probably = smaller future +$EV.

Seems like it would be too hard to factor in much stuff manually so if the proggy were reading a hand history it could track things, but if doing it by hand, maybe a single table image number? The program could evaluate the impact of a push by assuming your image number goes down by some margin with every push and so tries to calculate the future $EV impact of this change? If you have a high table image number, impact isn't so big, but if your table image number is low, the change is greater. (Like if I push once there isn't much change (say 1 point), but each additional time a push is a large and larger change (like 2 points for the next push and 4 point for the one after that.) I think we're pretty much into wild ass guess territory at this point, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have the tools at work but I think there is an approach to examine this issue. Working within the preset ranges for simplicity. Let's say you put the player on your left on an average preset calling range. Pick a hand from a hand history around level 4-5 where you are open pushing. Your next push will result in him expanding his range against you to the loose preset regardless of the result of the hand. How did his changed range affect your +$EV opportunities for the remainder of the tourney. What if his range went from loose to maniac? What if it affected both players on your left?

I think an examination like this would be able to tell if the effect was significant.

[Nicholasp27]

on that post, i put a note that i edited the definition...i didn't just change it to act like i had it that way from the beginning

i did make a mistake when i wrote that and i've now fixed it...we've been rambling on and going on sidetracks and everything else and i messed up...i'm now trying to make my argument more straightforward


so again, which assumption is incorrect?

if none, then we can agree on what icm/sngpt do and then we can move forward with agreeing on whether or not table image and skill level are dynamic and thus if u can take an action to change either of those, you then change the value of future ev calculations

[Nicholasp27]

i've seen before using the tools that if the range changes from tight to maniac, the ev can swing >1%...

so if u make a +.1ev move that will result in the opp changing from tight to maniac, then that affected your future ev by 1%, making that +.1ev move not so hot

[BadMongo]

That's fine. You made up an example where the EV of your push depends heavily on folding equity. I'm not saying that push a lot can NEVER decrease your EV on future hands, of course it can. What I'm saying is that it can also INCREASE it.

Consider this example which you seem to have overlooked before:

You have pushed 3 times in a row into the BB of the guy on your left, and you know that his range has loosened substantially. You push a fourth time, holding AA.

Is your EV higher or lower than it would have been had you not pushed those 3 previous hands?

The answer is higher. You want a call when your holding aces, and because of your previous pushes you are now more likely to get it. So passing on those small EV spots not only cost you the EV you would have got directly from those hands, but also the increased EV you now expect to get from this hand.

Therefore, you blanket statement that:

[ QUOTE ]
if your action in hand X causes the opps' ranges to loosen in hand Y, then your ev will be less in hand Y than if you hadn't taken that action in hand X

[/ QUOTE ]

Is clearly false in this case. Since you cannot predict whether pushing now will help or hurt your future EV, I don't agree with your position that those small +EV hands should be folded if the ICM assumptions have all been satisfied.

[Nicholasp27]

your argument is that we can't predict if it will make it higher or lower so just take all of the + and don't worry about it...we may get aces and it helps then...

well we can't predict most things in poker, but we still work to do as best as we can...if i know that pushing now (blinds 75/150) will most likely prevent me from being able to profitably be able to push in 2 hands (blinds 100/200) then i may want to fold this .1ev hand...u have to use judgement

and u are much more likely to get a hand that does worse against the wider range than does better against the wider range...and that's the point of all of this...what's likely to result in more money

again, i don't think that u should be passing up +.8ev situations because u don't wanna look loose...but +.1ev? sure, at times

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
so again, which assumption is incorrect?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at this point in your ramblings, mainly that a push now will have a profound affect on your future +$EV opportunities. I think on average the effect will be marginal at best.

The only effect a push now could have is to widen opponents' calling ranges. I think we can agree that tighter opponents = more FE = more +$EV push opportunities. So, looser opponents is bad.

The problem is, a SnG is very, very short. and the push/fold part of a SnG is even shorter. I just don't think there is enough time for there to be much of an effect usually. Also, one push probably has 0 effect. It is combinations of pushes that might have an effect. Again, with the short time factor, the probabilities of having the right combination of pushes to have a significant impact is small.

Based on my experience, I think we're definitely talking about affecting less than one decision per tourney. If I had to guess, I'd probably say we might be talking about one decision per 4 tourneys on average?

(I'm a math major, so I apologize in advance for some of my rude language when proving this; it gets me by when doing assignments.)

1) SnGPT takes into account everything except for skill level and very extreme stack situations. I'll ignore extreme stack sizes because that's relatively rare and playing around it is fairly straightforward (fold A LOT when there's a super-short shorty and you're third stack with little FE).

Remember that what ICM really is is a method to calculate (very accurately) your chances of coming in a given place. Skill level tends to manifest itself in a coefficient before each of these chances. So, if your ICM percent chance for first is A, second is B, and third is C (where 1-(A+B+C)=chances of fourth or worse), your actual chances may be xA + yB + zC. If you're better than your average opponent, then ($first)xA + ($second)yB + ($third)zC > ($first)A + ($second)B + ($third)C. For many of us, this fact is clearly true at the beginning of the tournament because many of us lose less than the rake or even beat the rake and are therefore better than our opposition.

Now comes the important part. Suppose the blinds were raised to 10k/20k at the beginning of the tourny, i.e. every bet for the entire tourny would be all in or fold, and the BB and SB are forced all in no matter what. Do you see how this would seriously lower our x,y, and z? We're now guaranteed to be all in blind in the first 9 hands, and that's if we're lucky (20% of the time we're all in blind on the first hand). Of course, if we properly adapted to this style, we could still have an edge, but clearly not as much as before. This extreme example shows that as the blinds go up x, y, and z approach 1.

Now, imagine that in this extreme example, it's now HU. Obviously it's impossible to gain any edge here, and your EV is exactly what ICM predicts it to be. Thus, as it gets shorter handed, x, y, and z approach 1.

The point of all of this is to show that when it's push/fold time on the bubble, our skill level advantage is much smaller than it is earlier on. Therefore, we don't have nearly as much of an argument for passing up marginal EV edges (Again, as Alias keeps trying to say, EV and cEV are different. This is incredibly important to understand, and is the entire point of ICM.) because our chips are no longer worth significantly more than our opponents' chips. If I had a large enough sample size, I'd demonstrate this empirically to anyone who's skeptical.

2)

The argument that our opponents' calling ranges will loosen after we push is sound. However, its effect is pretty insignificant.

Consider all the possible outcomes of a push (I'm gonna ignore three-way pots and things):

a) You get called by a bigger stack and lose. Clearly, widened opponents' calling ranges don't mean anything to you after this.
b) You get called by a bigger stack and win. Here, widened calling ranges do matter. (The argument that they couldn't matter nearly as much as doubling up holds no weight because doubling up was factored into our EV calculated by SnGPT the first time, and therefore should not be factored in again.)
c) We get called by a shorty and win. They do affect us here.
d) We get called by a shorty and lose. Here, it affects us.
e) We win the blinds. They affect us here.

Now, further consider the situations in which widened calling ranges actually affect us.

Case b is a rare circumstance because of the gap concept. Big stack's calling calling range should be significantly tighter than our pushing range, so he shouldn't be calling often, and when we push with marginal hands (we're not debating non-marginal pushes, of course), we don't figure to win more than 30% of the few times we get called. Similarly, if we win this, we obviously have a bigger stack than before, and widened calling ranges hurt larger stacks less than smaller stacks because larger stacks have less chance of being busted out and need to push less frequently.

Case c involves the same two factors as case b (it's rare, and we have a larger stack) with the very important additional factor that you're now ITM. ITM, it's much less dangerous to get called, so the widened calling ranges have a much smaller effect.

Case d is essentially the worst case scenario in terms of getting hurt by widened calling ranges. However, it's rather rare because, again, shorty should be very tight calling us (more so than a big stack). Also, very few pushes into a short stack are marginal, so this should only affect you when considering to make a very marginal push into a short stack. Most of these marginal pushes are marginal because shorty's stack size is pretty big compared to our own (>50% or so). In these cases, the FE lost from a shrunken stack size is much more significant than that do to widened calling ranges.

Case e is insignificant because our lost EV from widened calling ranges can never be larger than the amount we gained from stealing the blinds. This is true because if the push did lose more than that amount in EV, it would become a fold (which obviously can't cost us more than the blinds).

I apologize for the very long reply, and feel free to disagree, but please take this into account before furthering making your arguments. Also, please please please refrain from the idea that EV isn't always a good thing; it always is.

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
if i know that pushing now (blinds 75/150) will most likely prevent me from being able to profitably be able to push in 2 hands (blinds 100/200) then i may want to fold this .1ev hand...u have to use judgement

again, i don't think that u should be passing up +.8ev situations because u don't wanna look loose...but +.1ev? sure, at times

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, eastbay's program comes preset with a threshold of .5, so you wouldn't be pushing a +.1ev if you use the defaults anyway. You say you shouldn't pass up +.8 because you don't want to look loose. What about +.5? If you shouldn't pass up +.5 because you don't want to look loose it looks like eastbay already put in place enough fudge factor to overcome the table image factor.

[Nicholasp27]

ok, so now we agree that it does matter...so we agree that ICM neglects change in table image in it's calculations...

i'm not saying it has a 'profound effect'...i'm simply stating that it can widen your opp's ranges, which can have an effect ranging from .1ev to 1.1ev+...so i'm saying that if u know this push will have an effect on their range, it may be best to fold this hand

especially if blinds change next hand, u'd rather push the next one with tighter opp ranges than push it with a slightly wider range that comes from pushing 2+ times in a row

and i think the bubble is plenty long enough...many times it can last for 4+ levels!...all it takes tho is 3 hands...if sngpt tells u to push hand 1 and hand 2, then hand 3 will have a diff range...so if hand 2 is +.1ev, then maybe u should fold...

[Nicholasp27]

i've said i think .5 is a good guidepost

but there are times when .5 should be folded...remember, when it calculates u being called, it just calculates your static icm after the results based on probabilities...it doesnt take into consideration that being called with 27o is much worse than being called by kk in terms of future ev and table image

[ZeroPointMachine]

[ QUOTE ]


The argument that our opponents' calling ranges will loosen after we push is sound. However, its effect is pretty insignificant.

Consider all the possible outcomes of a push (I'm gonna ignore three-way pots and things):

a) You get called by a bigger stack and lose. Clearly, widened opponents' calling ranges don't mean anything to you after this.
b) You get called by a bigger stack and win. Here, widened calling ranges do matter. (The argument that they couldn't matter nearly as much as doubling up holds no weight because doubling up was factored into our EV calculated by SnGPT the first time, and therefore should not be factored in again.)
c) We get called by a shorty and win. They do affect us here.
d) We get called by a shorty and lose. Here, it affects us.
e) We win the blinds. They affect us here.

Now, further consider the situations in which widened calling ranges actually affect us.

Case b is a rare circumstance because of the gap concept. Big stack's calling calling range should be significantly tighter than our pushing range, so he shouldn't be calling often, and when we push with marginal hands (we're not debating non-marginal pushes, of course), we don't figure to win more than 30% of the few times we get called. Similarly, if we win this, we obviously have a bigger stack than before, and widened calling ranges hurt larger stacks less than smaller stacks because larger stacks have less chance of being busted out and need to push less frequently.

Case c involves the same two factors as case b (it's rare, and we have a larger stack) with the very important additional factor that you're now ITM. ITM, it's much less dangerous to get called, so the widened calling ranges have a much smaller effect.

Case d is essentially the worst case scenario in terms of getting hurt by widened calling ranges. However, it's rather rare because, again, shorty should be very tight calling us (more so than a big stack). Also, very few pushes into a short stack are marginal, so this should only affect you when considering to make a very marginal push into a short stack. Most of these marginal pushes are marginal because shorty's stack size is pretty big compared to our own (>50% or so). In these cases, the FE lost from a shrunken stack size is much more significant than that do to widened calling ranges.

Case e is insignificant because our lost EV from widened calling ranges can never be larger than the amount we gained from stealing the blinds. This is true because if the push did lose more than that amount in EV, it would become a fold (which obviously can't cost us more than the blinds).

I apologize for the very long reply, and feel free to disagree, but please take this into account before furthering making your arguments. Also, please please please refrain from the idea that EV isn't always a good thing; it always is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good analysis. But I think it focuses on bubble hands only. The assumption in c. that you are ITM if you win in particular. In my experience the days of cruising to four handed with 50/100 blinds are pretty much over. ICM plays consistently begins with 5/6/7 players at the table and quite a few hands between you and the money. Can controlling your opponents calling ranges in the early part of ICM play significantly alter your expectation for the tourney? I don't know. But, I think it is worth examining.

I appreciate your input on this discussion. I think I mentioned earlier that my OP was way off track. This current discussion is where I was headed. I have been making some adjustments in my game along these lines and it seemed to work. Obviously, "seemed to work" is not a terribly compelling argument. But it started me thinking and led me down this crooked road. My initial theories on why this might work were more or less garbage. But the resulting discussion was of benefit to me and hopefully others. This current discussion may be equally as valid. Still not sure. When my thinking is fuzzy on something it haunts me until I can resolve it. (Wish I'd never read the words quantum mechanics)

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, so now we agree that it does matter...so we agree that ICM neglects change in table image in it's calculations...

i'm not saying it has a 'profound effect'...i'm simply stating that it can widen your opp's ranges, which can have an effect ranging from .1ev to 1.1ev+...so i'm saying that if u know this push will have an effect on their range, it may be best to fold this hand

especially if blinds change next hand, u'd rather push the next one with tighter opp ranges than push it with a slightly wider range that comes from pushing 2+ times in a row

and i think the bubble is plenty long enough...many times it can last for 4+ levels!...all it takes tho is 3 hands...if sngpt tells u to push hand 1 and hand 2, then hand 3 will have a diff range...so if hand 2 is +.1ev, then maybe u should fold...

[/ QUOTE ]

A typical SnG is about 60 hands. You're saying the bubble can last 40 of those? I guess it's possible. It's also possible to get dealt AA 4 times in a row. But, how important it is is dependent on how often it will happen.

I don't think the bubble will be long enough often enough and I don't think if you're using correct ICM push/fold play you'll be pushing enough often enough for it to have much of a real effect on your longterm ROI. Some effect? Probably. Enough that it is worth investigating? Sure. Enough that most players should be frequently deviating from ICM? I really don't think so. Like I said before, I think for most people, it is perhaps one decision per 4 tournaments of difference and I think there is a pretty good chance of actually hurting your ROI rather than helping by deviating from ICM suggested push/fold.

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
i've said i think .5 is a good guidepost

but there are times when .5 should be folded...remember, when it calculates u being called, it just calculates your static icm after the results based on probabilities...it doesnt take into consideration that being called with 27o is much worse than being called by kk in terms of future ev and table image

[/ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, if you are called with 27o, you either lose and are probably out, or double up, which means you may not be pushing for a while/aren't the short stack any more/have people outchipped/etc. Again, I think there may be some impact, but I think it is far less than you are implying.

[Nicholasp27]

i just popped a hh into sngpt and the first hand i looked at was +1.3%!

for loose opp

for maniac opp it went to -.3%!!

that's 1.6% difference...if pushing a few +.1% can move ur opp from loose to maniac (which isn't even that loose btw), then u are making a HUGE difference

from +2.8(tight) to -.3(maniac)