Challenging the basics behind ICM
 

I have been trying to understand this forum's fascination with ICM. Certainly, ICM represents the "common wisdom" here.

As a fan of Freakonomics, I often have disdain for the common wisdom. As a long time statistics geek, I always wonder about the underpinnings of any statistical model.

ICM works perfectly if assumptions are met. But assumptions are NEVER met. I have never played at a table where everyone had the same skill level. 2 very good players will play hands very differently. We all develop styles of play (and hopefully know when to vary those styles).

ICM does not take context into consideration. Has the villian been stealing the blinds at every opportunity? How loose are the other players? Who just had a bad beat? How do the other players assess my play (am I considered tight and solid or loosey goosey)?

ICM has great theoretical underpinnings, but SNGs are much more complex than simply calculating a number.

Decision making of any type relies on context. I suggest that all poker players should read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. In many ways the decision making concepts that he discusses can relate to poker.

Intuition works, even in poker. You start to recognize situations and can make good decisions based on those intuitions.

4 handed, you are the small stack in the BB - 1400 chips after seeing the blind (200). The button goes all-in (4th time in 5 hands). He has 3300 chips. You have KQ unsuited - what do you do and why?

Can ICM give you the answer? <font color="purple"> </font>

Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
 

icm isn't perfect, it's just a model


however, we do take most of those things into consideration


if villian is stealing blinds at every opportunity, then we adjust his pushing range
if the other players are loose, we adjust their calling ranges
if someone just had a bad beat and u think he's gonna tilt, then adjust his range
if u think their range changes based on their perception of me, then adjust them accordingly


using icm is only as good as its inputs...it's up to u to be as accurate as possible in determining the villians' calling/pushing ranges

Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
 

[ QUOTE ]
s a fan of Freakonomics, I often have disdain for the common wisdom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cute, especially since the ICM approach is similar to the work done in Freakonomics than just playing by intuition.



[ QUOTE ]
ICM does not take context into consideration. Has the villian been stealing the blinds at every opportunity? How loose are the other players? Who just had a bad beat? How do the other players assess my play (am I considered tight and solid or loosey goosey)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it does. You can apply hand ranges for your opponents based on this information.

You can also make adjustments when using ICM. If a decision is close you can factor in your skill level advantage to make the correct action. Actually, this is done all the time on these baords.

ICM is the model used to calculate equity based on chip stacks. In your entire post you have not given a legitmate argument other than assumptions are never met. This has been discussed many times before and you are not bring anything new to the argument.

Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
 

[ QUOTE ]
ICM works perfectly if assumptions are met. But assumptions are NEVER met.

[/ QUOTE ]

The assumptions are rarely completely correct in any model, but they these models can still capture the main gist of a solution. You also seem to be misunderstanding what kind of inputs you are giving ICM, as others have already pointed out.

These threads need to die already.

Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
 

I have never actually used the math behind ICM but the basic concepts are definitely fundumental in my game. The most important aspects of SNGs (late game at least) are stack sizes and the relative aggressiveness of your opponents. You should be able to a feel for these (which is why I advocate sets 8 tabling).

Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can ICM give you the answer?

[/ QUOTE ]

ICM does not give you answers, you give the answers (I'm not sure that you fully understand what ICM means, but OK).

ICM is just a very helpful model to use for certain equity calculations. Of course it is not "all" that is important, but nothing that you say change the extreme +$EVness of using it as an important assumption about aspects of the game.

BTW, you can say, for instance, some similar things about "pot-odds in NL", or any other mathematical concept with regard to the game. Of course "pot-odds in NL" are very far from being the only thing that matters, and sometimes there are much more important things (if you think about NL ring only in terms of pot-odds, without considering any other thing, you are missing big parts of the game and can never be a very good player). So "Pot odds" won't "give you answers", but there are many many situations in which thinking in terms of "pot odds" is very helfpul, and not doing so is clearly -EV.

Of course the difference is that ICM might be wrong altogether (it doesn't look so), but you don't seem to be interested in this possibility at all. Actually, you have titled your post "Challenging the basics behind ICM", while in fact you haven't challenged even one small basic idea behind this model, you only talk about why intuition is better and such, but you don't seem to understand that there's no contradiction at all between using intuition and using ICM. I suggest getting a somewhat deeper understanding of this model before trying to "challenge its basics".

Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
 

your post shows very little proof of being a "long time stat geek."

others have in small part already pointed out why.

c

Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
s a fan of Freakonomics, I often have disdain for the common wisdom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cute, especially since the ICM approach is similar to the work done in Freakonomics than just playing by intuition.



[/ QUOTE ]

whoa, icm is like the anti-freakonomics. icm is a model that is invented from thin air, and while plausible, has no empirical backing whatsoever.

freakonomics is all about collecting data and interpreting it.

Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
 

I would like to thank the many responders. I apologize for not making my point more clearly.

Statistics (and here I assume that ICM is a statistical model) depend entirely on assumptions. If one changes the underlying assumptions then our results can change dramatically.

Models like ICM are most useful for analyzing simulated situations.

As I read the responses, the responders like ICM because you can adjust the assumptions. I believe you have made my point. The most important skill in poker (including SNGs) is to understand your opponents and how they probably view you. The examples supporting ICM make that point. You must estimate the likelihood of you opponents making a play (etc.).

ICM represents and interesting exploratory model, but its supporters point out that reading your opponents is more important. That is my point. We must learn to read our opponents more than relying on mathematical techniques.

Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
 

you do read your opponents when using ICM by putting what their calling ranges are. Do you know what ICM is other than a statistical model?