|
|
#51
02-24-2005, 12:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: ICM is often flawed
[ QUOTE ]
That wasnt a satellite, it was a normal sit and go. [/ QUOTE ] My bad -- I confused it with this thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...mp;sb=5&o= 
|
|
#52
02-24-2005, 12:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ICM is often flawed
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Just take a look at the thread "Interesting bubble hand" that was posted earlier in this thread. That's a great example of a situation where the numbers are just bogus. [/ QUOTE ] That's because that was a satellite where all payouts ITM were equal. ICM doesn't even apply there. [/ QUOTE ] Whoa. What are you saying? A satellite where all players get the same payout is a perfect way to show off why equity is more important than chipEV. In fact, I used exactly that example to demonstrate the value of the idea in a reply to GotMilk. eastbay
|
|
#53
02-24-2005, 12:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ICM is often flawed
[ QUOTE ]
To make it more clear, say you're ITM at a final table and making a deal. Deals are all about getting at least your fair share of the equity. Would you say "hey, that deal would be fair, except I'm on the button so I deserve more." Unless someone is about to bust from the blinds, that's just a silly thing to say, because it hardly matters at all for your equity. [/ QUOTE ] Great analogy. I think the difference shows up mostly with short stacks again. I think folding equity is a roughly logarithmic function. If you double a short stack, you make a huge gain in folding equity. If you double the biggest stack at the table, however, your folding equity is essentially unchanged. While you may get laughed at if you try it, I honestly think a short stack is entitled to a slightly larger share if on the button than UTG. Think about the reverse argument: "Well you're going to be all-in on the BB anyway, so you deserve a smaller share." Not a ridiculous notion, is it? More abstractly, which position would you rather be in? Clearly with a short stack the answer cannot be "I don't care." So there is some equity value there.
|
|
#54
02-24-2005, 12:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ICM is often flawed
[ QUOTE ]
I think folding equity is a roughly logarithmic function. If you double a short stack, you make a huge gain in folding equity. If you double the biggest stack at the table, however, your folding equity is essentially unchanged. [/ QUOTE ] By the way, I believe this is the primary reason why ICM is inaccurate when short stacks are involved, and this is the problem I am trying to rectify.
|
|
#55
02-24-2005, 12:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ICM is often flawed
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Just take a look at the thread "Interesting bubble hand" that was posted earlier in this thread. That's a great example of a situation where the numbers are just bogus. [/ QUOTE ] That's because that was a satellite where all payouts ITM were equal. ICM doesn't even apply there. [/ QUOTE ] Whoa. What are you saying? A satellite where all players get the same payout is a perfect way to show off why equity is more important than chipEV. In fact, I used exactly that example to demonstrate the value of the idea in a reply to GotMilk. eastbay [/ QUOTE ] I should have been more clear. I was referring specifically to the online ICM calculator, which assumes a standard payout structure. Clearly the ICM works here, but you have to make the necessary adjustment for the changed structure.
|
|
#56
02-24-2005, 01:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ICM is often flawed
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Just take a look at the thread "Interesting bubble hand" that was posted earlier in this thread. That's a great example of a situation where the numbers are just bogus. [/ QUOTE ] That's because that was a satellite where all payouts ITM were equal. ICM doesn't even apply there. [/ QUOTE ] Whoa. What are you saying? A satellite where all players get the same payout is a perfect way to show off why equity is more important than chipEV. In fact, I used exactly that example to demonstrate the value of the idea in a reply to GotMilk. eastbay [/ QUOTE ] I should have been more clear. I was referring specifically to the online ICM calculator, which assumes a standard payout structure. Clearly the ICM works here, but you have to make the necessary adjustment for the changed structure. [/ QUOTE ] Dethgrind has been kind enough to change this. You can now specify the prize structure in the online ICM calculator.
|
|
#57
02-24-2005, 01:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ICM is often flawed
[ QUOTE ]
Dethgrind has been kind enough to change this. You can now specify the prize structure in the online ICM calculator. [/ QUOTE ] Cool! Can you give a link? The one at the address I have still assumes the standard payout.
|
|
#58
02-24-2005, 01:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ICM is often flawed
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Dethgrind has been kind enough to change this. You can now specify the prize structure in the online ICM calculator. [/ QUOTE ] Cool! Can you give a link? The one at the address I have still assumes the standard payout. [/ QUOTE ] Spiffy new version of ICM calculator
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
