[wahooriver]

Thanks to all the posters on this thread. I think I better understand the fascination with ICM. The arguments here (and elsewhere) do not convince me of the superiority of ICM over Harrington's book (especially with regards to understanding M).

Clearly we have no major argument early in a tourney. We all try to avoid early confrontations and all-ins.

The challenge is how to play once we get down to 5 players. I get there around 64% of my 55s (sample size 106 - reasonable for estimating this percentage). I suspect both systems give us strong clues. I doubt that ICM has a major advantage over M. The key here is understanding when one's back is against the wall. Knowing the range of cards which allow an all-in (which might get called) and understanding when waiting is a bad idea helps one.

We have very complex decisions to make with 4 or 5 players left. How strong do we play for 1st or 2nd - or do we go for the money only? We have to judge the changing aggressiveness of the table as the blinds increase.

ICM seems like 1 nice method for estimating success. Is it flawed? Of course, any method which depends on math will be incomplete.

The original purpose of my post was to stimulate discussion. I have read the FAQ and lurked for the past 3 weeks. I did want to see the arguments both ways.

I critiqued ICM as a straw man to see what everyone would say. I think we all agree that reading our opponents is a very necessary skill to compliment our statistical understanding.

We love poker because of that blend of statistics and psychology. We never tire of playing poker, because each situation has its own context. Our decision making processes are constantly challenged.

This forum has helped me greatly understand the joys of playing SNGs. I have almost stopped playing ring games as the challenge of tournament play are so much greater!

Thanks to all the frequent posters who help us make the transition to SNGs. You are making me a +EV player and I appreciate that.