ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...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...

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

[ 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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

[ 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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

[ 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?

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

[ 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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

[ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

[ 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?

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

[ 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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

[ 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).

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

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

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

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

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

[ 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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

[ 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?

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

[ 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).

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

[ 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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

[ 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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

[ 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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

$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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

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?

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

[ 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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

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...)

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

[ 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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

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

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

[ 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

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

[ 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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

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

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

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.

Re: ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)
 

[ 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.