ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)

[Nicholasp27]

example:

i steal your blinds with pushes 2 circuits in a row

are you going to loosen up your range for calling my pushes?

do u think the guy to my left will loosen up his range as much as you will?

have u never seen players 'make a stand' against someone pushing their blinds? have u never seen players spite call?


my argument is that it matters who u pushed into...each player was effected differently by your pushes and folds...so they each have a different range against you

[BadMongo]

[ QUOTE ]
if your action in hand X causes the opps' ranges to loosen in hand Y, then your ev will be less in hand Y than if you hadn't taken that action in hand X

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't agree with this statement. I have already given an example where this would be false. You are confusing folding equity with EV.

[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?

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
table image of yourself for each opp

not talking about their numbers...saying that their number FOR YOU may vary from opp to opp

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. I think that is getting too complicated. At that point the model is starting to become too cumbersome to use, I think. Trying to come up with a future table image factor might be doable. Trying to do it for every opponent is way to much work for what it is worth.

Again, I think the impact of this is quite small. Too small to put that much into trying to calculate.

[BadMongo]

[ QUOTE ]
my argument is that it matters who u pushed into...each player was effected differently by your pushes and folds...so they each have a different range against you

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? You can specify different ranges for different opponents for different hands.

[Nicholasp27]

exactly...u can't get accurate enough...so that's why we use our human judgement

the good players adjust on the fly


sometimes it's ok to push that +.1% ev spot

sometimes it's not

if u are pushing a +.1% ev spot with a9s, then that is different than pushing a +.1% ev spot with 27o...due to future calculations changing if u are called...

thus our argument that you should not just blindly push every +ev situation EVEN IF you have the inputs 100% accurate

[Nicholasp27]

i'm talking about your suggestion of one number to give value to your 'table image'

i'm saying that one number wouldn't be good enough

[Nicholasp27]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if your action in hand X causes the opps' ranges to loosen in hand Y, then your ev will be less in hand Y than if you hadn't taken that action in hand X

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't agree with this statement. I have already given an example where this would be false. You are confusing folding equity with EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't agree?

example:
i push your bb 2 circuits in a row

the 3rd circuit, i get a hand that icm says is +.1 ev after i've accurately input your range (i'm a mindreader)

on the 4th circuit, i get a hand and input your range from last time...it says i'm +.7ev...but i can read your mind and you are thinking you are calling with a wider range due to my stealing your blinds 3 times in a row...if i input that range into sngpt, it tells me i'm -.3ev

now was it better to push that 3rd time or was it better to fold the 3rd time and then push the 4th time?

[ZeroPointMachine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, you've pushed from SB into BB the last two orbits. Here you are again with a marginal(+.6%) push against his current range with 100-200 blinds. If you have a workable stacksize and you feel that pushing this hand will open villian's range drastically on future hands, can you argue that the lost FE in the future higher blinds out weighs the current slightly positive situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree this is a very interesting topic and is very difficult to quantify. It is, unfortunately, not just the last few hands either. If someone has pushed UTG on my BB the last 3 times in a row (not 3 sequential hands in a row) that also tends to widen my calling range, for me quite a bit. ;-) To make it simple, perhaps there is a way to take previous X hands actions combined with current push = some widening of future calling range. I think, for the most part, the tighter our opponents are, the better as we can steal with a wider range of hands. So wider future calling ranges probably = smaller future +$EV.

Seems like it would be too hard to factor in much stuff manually so if the proggy were reading a hand history it could track things, but if doing it by hand, maybe a single table image number? The program could evaluate the impact of a push by assuming your image number goes down by some margin with every push and so tries to calculate the future $EV impact of this change? If you have a high table image number, impact isn't so big, but if your table image number is low, the change is greater. (Like if I push once there isn't much change (say 1 point), but each additional time a push is a large and larger change (like 2 points for the next push and 4 point for the one after that.) I think we're pretty much into wild ass guess territory at this point, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have the tools at work but I think there is an approach to examine this issue. Working within the preset ranges for simplicity. Let's say you put the player on your left on an average preset calling range. Pick a hand from a hand history around level 4-5 where you are open pushing. Your next push will result in him expanding his range against you to the loose preset regardless of the result of the hand. How did his changed range affect your +$EV opportunities for the remainder of the tourney. What if his range went from loose to maniac? What if it affected both players on your left?

I think an examination like this would be able to tell if the effect was significant.

[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