|
|
#31
10-31-2005, 10:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. 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 don't know about this really. ICM just happens to be a very simple model that accounts for the obvious situations where people have equal stacks and the end of the game when people place. Calculating equity using ICM is pretty easy, but how are you testing it? I haven't heard of any dataminers really testing it. My best argument for it's empirical support is that the people that know it, or play like they do are generally successful, but that is just my impression as no one has any data on that either. Anyway, sorry if I missed some of your posts where you went into your tests and for being generally argumentative as I pretty much agree with you. [/ QUOTE ] I made a computer program in which players start with stacks that I plug in manually and it chooses two players at random to exchange chips as a random percentage of the smaller stack (evenly distributed between 0 and 100%). This is essentially what a skill-less poker tournament is. I admit that this has its flaws, but it's damn good model and it supports ICM. Also, ICM is mathematically sound, which is way more important than empirical data. 
|
|
#32
10-31-2005, 11:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
[ QUOTE ]
I doubt that ICM has a major advantage over M. [/ QUOTE ] Here's a suggestion: try to gain at least a cursory, passing understanding of something before you "challenge the basics" on it.
|
|
#33
10-31-2005, 11:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
[ QUOTE ]
I get there around 64% of my 55s (sample size 106 - reasonable for estimating this percentage). [/ QUOTE ] I'm guessing based purely on statistical error that you should phrase this as 64%+-10%. I can't figure out exactly what you're getting at here, so just decide if that's good enough for you. As for the rest of your post... colder. Go back and figure out what ICM calculates, what eastbay's SNGPT does (and how it uses ICM to evaluate push/fold decisions), and what the Harrington M is. Then figure out why your last post doesn't make a lot of sense.
|
|
#34
10-31-2005, 11:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
thank you eastbay, im glad you of all people posted just so i have reassurance i am not retarded and missing what ICM is.
|
|
#35
10-31-2005, 11:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
[ QUOTE ]
As a fan of Freakonomics, I often have disdain for the common wisdom. [/ QUOTE ] This is one of the more unintentionally (or maybe it was intentional? The further I got the more this looked like a skillfully executed troll) funny things I've read here. I'm not sure I can come up with a sentence that shouts self-parody more strongly. [ QUOTE ] I suggest that all poker players should read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. [/ QUOTE ] Do you work for a bookstore? Any attempt at theoretical modeling requires assumptions. You cannot simplify to the point of tractability without them. ICM makes some assumptions that seem to gel well with the experience of some pretty solid players around here. In the interest of producing some reasonably good model to inform our analysis, it seems like the best we have so far. If you think that the program of trying to mathematically analyze poker is useless, I'd say that you're ignoring substantial evidence to the contrary.
|
|
#36
11-01-2005, 07:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I doubt that ICM has a major advantage over M. [/ QUOTE ] Here's a suggestion: try to gain at least a cursory, passing understanding of something before you "challenge the basics" on it. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#37
11-01-2005, 11:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
[ QUOTE ]
I get there around 64% of my 55s (sample size 106 - reasonable for estimating this percentage). [/ QUOTE ] you are a stats geek?
|
|
#38
11-01-2005, 11:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, any method which depends on math will be incomplete. [/ QUOTE ] lol EVERYTHING depends on math...life, nature, everything...everything in poker is based on math...u just change the values of the variables based on reads, etc
|
|
#40
11-01-2005, 11:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
[ QUOTE ]
The arguments here (and elsewhere) do not convince me of the superiority of ICM over Harrington's book (especially with regards to understanding M). [/ QUOTE ] I just cannot understand why so many people think ICM and M are competing methodologies. You can very nicely use M together with ICM in your decision making process.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
