[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

not to turn this into a pissing contest, but i went to a top school and majored in math and minored in physics. i frankly don't care how a theory was derived, as long as it describes real-world phenomena accurately. my contention is that ICM has not been shown to do that.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

does this program use actual tourney data or does it use computer simulations? if it's the former, i'd be very interested to learn more. i'm in the middle of a similar project that has unfortunately stalled.

[ QUOTE ]
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).

[/ QUOTE ]

i know some people have done this looking at their own statistics, but i'd love to see if anyone has done the analysis looking at observed stt's. i have around 1500 observed stt's and i'd love to try to test icm using them. or if someone has already done this, i would be very interested in learning more.