[wahooriver]

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>