[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's entirely untrue.

1) It was created mathematically, which is certainly not from thin air. I doubt any intelligent person who's well versed in science and math would prefer a theory that was derived empirically to one derived mathematically. For example, Special and General Relativity were both invented with little to no regard for experimental data.

2) ICM is backed by ridiculous amounts of empirical data. I actually wrote a program on my computer at home that tests ICM; it's very easy to do. It's very easy to write a program like this one. Also, I'm sure data miners can show that results come very close to ICM in actual SnGs (the difference would be because people with larger stacks on the bubble tend to be more skillful, so this would distort things).

To everyone: stop making posts like the OP's. If you want to ask questions about this stuff, that's fine, but please don't act like you know what you're talking about if you don't because it detracts from the forum tremendously. There really isn't much of a debate here, and I think it's very -EV for many people who read these forums to think that there is.