ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
it predicts the future based solely on EQUAL SKILL LEVELS and EQUIVALENT TABLE-IMAGE...

do u agree that if u sit down next to 8 donks and gigabet that icm is correct in saying that everybody's ev is .1?

if not, then skill and table-image matter

and skill is not static...

again: i realize icm predicts the future, but only based on chip stacks and blinds...not based on skill/table image...both of which can change dynamically from hand to hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's really hard to discuss this with you because you keep changing your argument. You started off by saying it would be correct to pass up a +$EV opportunity for a greater +$EV opportunity later, which is clearly incorrect. Now, you are talking about factoring skill level and future table image into ICM.

Trying to factor skill level into ICM has already been discussed and agreed would be a nifty thing. I think trying to factor in impact on future table image would also be interesting.

However, the fact remains that a SnG is a very short period of time. How much impact your table image could possibly take during the period when ICM push/fold kicks in and the end of the tournament is probably not that great compared to the larger share of prize money you get from pushing when ICM says to push. (So, basically, I think there is a larger chance that you will overcompensate and lose prize money equity by folding when you really should be pushing than gain prize money equity by keeping your image up.)

These things are refinements and could have a small, but noticeable affect on ICM predictions. Given the short nature of push/fold play in a single SnG, I doubt the impact will be very large, however. Again, I would think less than 1 potentially changed decision per tournament on average.

[Nicholasp27]

ok, here is my understanding about ICM and SNGPT:

tell me which assumptions/statements are wrong


1) ICM takes the input of stack sizes of all players and the payout structure and outputs the expected prize equity that each stack has (predicts future)

2) ICM does not take into account blinds/skill/table image or anything other than stack sizes and payout structure

3) SNGPT uses ICM

4) SNGPT figures out the probability of occurences W, X, Y, Z: everyone folds to your push, people call you and you win, people call you and you tie, people call you and you fold

5) After doing #4, SNGPT plugs those resulting stack sizes into ICM to determine the equity in each of those scenarios

6) SNGPT then examines if ICM says your equity is higher if you fold or if you push based on probability of W/X/Y/Z occurring and their resulting ICM equity results

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, here is my understanding about ICM and SNGPT:

tell me which assumptions/statements are wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

What is funny is you seem to be going back to previous posts you made and cleaning up inaccurate statements that you made.

You previously said (and I'm paraphrasing, but this is almost a qutoe), ICM says "If the tournament ended after this hand and prize money distributed by chips...". Of course, that post, now says something different. But, this was in your original post and clearly shows a misunderstanding of how ICM works. ICM does not say, "If the tournament ended after this hand and prize money distributed by chips..." That would be a chip equity=prize money equity model. It uses a chip as lottery ticket model, which is very different. It was, in fact, created to overcome limitations of the chip equity=prize money model.

Why are you going back and changing previous posts to match your now-changed story?

[Nicholasp27]

on that post, i put a note that i edited the definition...i didn't just change it to act like i had it that way from the beginning

i did make a mistake when i wrote that and i've now fixed it...we've been rambling on and going on sidetracks and everything else and i messed up...i'm now trying to make my argument more straightforward


so again, which assumption is incorrect?

if none, then we can agree on what icm/sngpt do and then we can move forward with agreeing on whether or not table image and skill level are dynamic and thus if u can take an action to change either of those, you then change the value of future ev calculations

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
so again, which assumption is incorrect?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at this point in your ramblings, mainly that a push now will have a profound affect on your future +$EV opportunities. I think on average the effect will be marginal at best.

The only effect a push now could have is to widen opponents' calling ranges. I think we can agree that tighter opponents = more FE = more +$EV push opportunities. So, looser opponents is bad.

The problem is, a SnG is very, very short. and the push/fold part of a SnG is even shorter. I just don't think there is enough time for there to be much of an effect usually. Also, one push probably has 0 effect. It is combinations of pushes that might have an effect. Again, with the short time factor, the probabilities of having the right combination of pushes to have a significant impact is small.

Based on my experience, I think we're definitely talking about affecting less than one decision per tourney. If I had to guess, I'd probably say we might be talking about one decision per 4 tourneys on average?

[Nicholasp27]

ok, so now we agree that it does matter...so we agree that ICM neglects change in table image in it's calculations...

i'm not saying it has a 'profound effect'...i'm simply stating that it can widen your opp's ranges, which can have an effect ranging from .1ev to 1.1ev+...so i'm saying that if u know this push will have an effect on their range, it may be best to fold this hand

especially if blinds change next hand, u'd rather push the next one with tighter opp ranges than push it with a slightly wider range that comes from pushing 2+ times in a row

and i think the bubble is plenty long enough...many times it can last for 4+ levels!...all it takes tho is 3 hands...if sngpt tells u to push hand 1 and hand 2, then hand 3 will have a diff range...so if hand 2 is +.1ev, then maybe u should fold...

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, so now we agree that it does matter...so we agree that ICM neglects change in table image in it's calculations...

i'm not saying it has a 'profound effect'...i'm simply stating that it can widen your opp's ranges, which can have an effect ranging from .1ev to 1.1ev+...so i'm saying that if u know this push will have an effect on their range, it may be best to fold this hand

especially if blinds change next hand, u'd rather push the next one with tighter opp ranges than push it with a slightly wider range that comes from pushing 2+ times in a row

and i think the bubble is plenty long enough...many times it can last for 4+ levels!...all it takes tho is 3 hands...if sngpt tells u to push hand 1 and hand 2, then hand 3 will have a diff range...so if hand 2 is +.1ev, then maybe u should fold...

[/ QUOTE ]

A typical SnG is about 60 hands. You're saying the bubble can last 40 of those? I guess it's possible. It's also possible to get dealt AA 4 times in a row. But, how important it is is dependent on how often it will happen.

I don't think the bubble will be long enough often enough and I don't think if you're using correct ICM push/fold play you'll be pushing enough often enough for it to have much of a real effect on your longterm ROI. Some effect? Probably. Enough that it is worth investigating? Sure. Enough that most players should be frequently deviating from ICM? I really don't think so. Like I said before, I think for most people, it is perhaps one decision per 4 tournaments of difference and I think there is a pretty good chance of actually hurting your ROI rather than helping by deviating from ICM suggested push/fold.