|
|
#11
02-23-2005, 06:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: ICM is often flawed
I never said it wasn't valuable, but I see too many posters rely on it in incorrect situations. If there are 3 threads a day where posters use ICM calculations that are just way off, then obviously it's being misused. btw despite everything, Ive never had any use for the ICM in it's current form, but I'm sure it has real value in some situations. 
|
|
#12
02-23-2005, 06:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ICM is often flawed
[ QUOTE ]
btw despite everything, Ive never had any use for the ICM in it's current form, but I'm sure it has real value in some situations. [/ QUOTE ] Doyle never had any use for "the scientists'" ideas like EV, either. That doesn't mean it wasn't important, or wasn't there in his plays, it just meant that he learned how to make the +EV plays through experience and intuition, rather than analysis. Same thing here. Just because you "have no use for it" doesn't mean it isn't valuable. eastbay
|
|
#14
02-23-2005, 06:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ICM is often flawed
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say it wasnt valuable. I just said I don't have any real use for it. [/ QUOTE ] I didn't say you did. But a casual observer might dismiss the entire idea without understanding why that might be a mistake. eastbay
|
|
#16
02-23-2005, 06:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ICM is often flawed
[ QUOTE ]
Same thing here. Just because you "have no use for it" doesn't mean it isn't valuable. [/ QUOTE ] it is basically worthless in its current form because it can only be used in situations where position and blind size don't matter, which is basically never when you are 10-handed. If you ever use it for a sit and go in any situation it is going to be off, and off significantly (save the situations where stack sizes are equal--did you really need a calculator for that?). It will never tell you anything except the average EV of those stack sizes over a million trials with all the variables being randomized as well. Any poker situation is a specific situation, and since the calculator doesn't apply to specific situations it is of very little use. [ QUOTE ] That doesn't mean it wasn't important, or wasn't there in his plays, it just meant that he learned how to make the +EV plays through experience and intuition, rather than analysis. [/ QUOTE ] How, in its current form, can it teach you +EV plays through analysis?
|
|
#17
02-23-2005, 06:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ICM is often flawed
[ QUOTE ]
it is basically worthless in its current form because it can only be used in situations where position and blind size don't matter, [/ QUOTE ] I don't think that's an accurate statement. [ QUOTE ] which is basically never when you are 10-handed. [/ QUOTE ] It is least useful 10-handed. It is most useful 5, 4, and 3 handed. [ QUOTE ] If you ever use it for a sit and go in any situation it is going to be off, and off significantly (save the situations where stack sizes are equal--did you really need a calculator for that?). It will never tell you anything except the average EV of those stack sizes over a million trials with all the variables being randomized as well. Any poker situation is a specific situation, and since the calculator doesn't apply to specific situations it is of very little use. [/ QUOTE ] I don't believe that's accurate either. [ QUOTE ] That doesn't mean it wasn't important, or wasn't there in his plays, it just meant that he learned how to make the +EV plays through experience and intuition, rather than analysis. [/ QUOTE ] How, in its current form, can it teach you +EV plays through analysis? [/ QUOTE ] Because it can account for the implications of prize structure whereas chipEV completely ignores this. This is the basic value of the idea. Consider the case of calling a SB push from the BB in two cases, one on the bubble and one 3-handed. In a cash game, for given chip stacks and cards, your EV for a call is your EV and any other considerations are of secondary importance. In a tournament, it may be a clear call 3-handed (ITM) but a clear fold 4-handed because of the prize structure. Equity models like ICM can be a very valuable guide for seeing the differing values of the call in the two situations. To make it painfully clear, say you're in a tournament where top 3 win $1M and 4 wins nothing. 2 players and you have 10k chips, and 1 player has 500 chips. SB moves in over your BB of 100 for his 10k and shows you QJ. You have AK. Clearly prize structure has a big influence on what you should do. Equity models like ICM connect your decision to the prize structure to lead you towards better decisions than considering whether you're gaining or losing chips on the hand. Obviously it would take a very stupid player to think taking 60/40 here was a good idea, but I've just drawn up an extreme example to show why equity considerations matter. ICM is only one way of getting at that, but for many situations it certainly is good enough to lead you in the right direction. I know you understand all this - I'm really pointing it out for more inexperienced players who are trying to understand the concept of equity and why it matters, and why quantifying equity matters and is a worthy goal, even if the methods at our disposal aren't perfect. ICM is a very nice first cut way of making that quantification. Sure, there's situations where it doesn't apply at all, but there's also, IMO, far more situations where it does give useful information. eastbay
|
|
#18
02-23-2005, 06:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ICM is often flawed
[ QUOTE ]
ICM numbers are wrong a lot of the time, especially late in an event with big blinds, and short stacks. [/ QUOTE ] As long as they are calculated correctly, the ICM numbers are never wrong. The ICM does not make decisions. It just is. It can't be wrong any more than a tree can be wrong. Now.. YOU can be wrong. I can be wrong. But the evidence can't be wrong... it's just evidence. Don't hate the player, hate the game. Irieguy
|
|
#20
02-23-2005, 10:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ICM is often flawed
He means the ICM is the ICM and gives correct ICM results. Just like calculating chip EV gives correct chip EV results.
Determining the actual value of a play in an SNG is not possible. There are too many variables. It matters how you and the other players are going to play in the following hands, which is not the case in a cash game. All we can do is refer to models. Chip EV is one such model, but it is pretty poor. The ICM is a great improvement. If you have reasons, in a specific hand, why the ICM results do not apply then all you have to do is state them. But I think it's a stretch to say the ICM "often" gives wrong results. Also I think it's a waste of time trying to develop a model that takes into account position, etc. Those variables are too complex to be modelled.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
