10-27-2005, 05:20 PM
There is a post: $11: lvl4 is this a easy call? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=3794337&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1)
I do think it's a correct call, but it raises an interesting point about the 'idempotent-ness' of ICM type calculations if one's not careful.
In other words, a play can be overall +equity on the first-order (the literal weighted sums of outcomes vs. ICM equity), and at the same time, there could be 'components' of that equity sum that are derived from scenerios that leave you with less true equity than the loss of the chips by reducing the equity value of your future transactions.
In other words, the 'loss' component of his net equity of the linked thread is the difference in equity before he lost the chips compared with after doubling the guy through. However, the extend of the loss in equity extends beyond that, as second order maneuvers will now have less equity due to a substantial drop in folding equity. That doesn't necessarily make the call incorrect, but it leaves me wondering.... in fact, anything that alters your opponents calling ranges (via change in image, change in stack sizes, etc.) could alter the 'true' nth-order equity of a scenerio signifigantly.
When is a first-order calculation sufficient? Maybe nth order considerations are not statistically signifigant and should be lobbed off...
Hmm. Discuss if you would.
I do think it's a correct call, but it raises an interesting point about the 'idempotent-ness' of ICM type calculations if one's not careful.
In other words, a play can be overall +equity on the first-order (the literal weighted sums of outcomes vs. ICM equity), and at the same time, there could be 'components' of that equity sum that are derived from scenerios that leave you with less true equity than the loss of the chips by reducing the equity value of your future transactions.
In other words, the 'loss' component of his net equity of the linked thread is the difference in equity before he lost the chips compared with after doubling the guy through. However, the extend of the loss in equity extends beyond that, as second order maneuvers will now have less equity due to a substantial drop in folding equity. That doesn't necessarily make the call incorrect, but it leaves me wondering.... in fact, anything that alters your opponents calling ranges (via change in image, change in stack sizes, etc.) could alter the 'true' nth-order equity of a scenerio signifigantly.
When is a first-order calculation sufficient? Maybe nth order considerations are not statistically signifigant and should be lobbed off...
Hmm. Discuss if you would.