ICM Thoughts

[ewing55]

Are you saying you would rather take the KQ hand because it is riskier? Meaning you are much more likely to get called and when you do you either double up or go home. Whereas the 74o will most likely just add slightly to your stack?

I made a similiar post a while ago about how I'd rather push my really small stack with a decent hand against a bunch of caller instead of push my really small stack against 1 caller with AA. That way I either multiply my stack or go home, because doubling up doesn't really help much with a really small stack.

The best reply was to the effect of: "You don't get these choices. You get dealt what you get dealt and you have to decide whether or not to play the hand/situation you are dealt or not."

In theory it is nice to argue these points and it may be helpful in thinking about poker in general, but in the game your only decision is whether/how to play the hand you are dealt.

Of course I could be wrong and probably am. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

---------------Jeff

[Unarmed]

[ QUOTE ]
a .5% gained equity for hand A with an X% busting possibility is differnt then a .5% gained equity when the % chance of busting is higher...You might be gaining the same value in ICM theory, but because your risk is greater(busting more often) your actual value is higher to fold.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much what I'm saying. I have two situations that net me 0.3% static ICM EV (like I put them in SNGPT and they both come out 0.3%) Sometimes I'll prefer to take the situation where I'm getting more of my EV through the strength of my cards, sometimes I'll rather the situation where I'm getting more through FE.

There may be little to know practical significance of this, and I want to go surfing so I'm in no mood to search for it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a .5% gained equity for hand A with an X% busting possibility is differnt then a .5% gained equity when the % chance of busting is higher...You might be gaining the same value in ICM theory, but because your risk is greater(busting more often) your actual value is higher to fold.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much what I'm saying. I have two situations that net me 0.3% static ICM EV (like I put them in SNGPT and they both come out 0.3%) Sometimes I'll prefer to take the situation where I'm getting more of my EV through the strength of my cards, sometimes I'll rather the situation where I'm getting more through FE.

There may be little to know practical significance of this, and I want to go surfing so I'm in no mood to search for it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to come to the opposite conclusion, though. You're preferring the higher risk play for the same change in EV.

eastbay

[Unarmed]

Well, by saying that I sometimes want the option which gives me more EV through the strength of my cards, that implies that I wish to take the high risk option. I'd accept the higher risk if my placing in the tournament is such that I feel I need to take a gamble in order to make my situation profitable. Is that mental?

[llabb]

No, this is not mental, this is smart poker depending on the play-style of the table. In lower buy-ins, it's probably preferable to take the 74 push rather than the KQ, because you simply want to survive. The bubble will be soft, and if you survive until it is shorter-handed, you will have more +EV opportunities, you can successfully steal more on the bubble, and perhaps fold/steal your way into a bigger stack and ITM without a showdown.

In the mid-to-high buy-in levels, the bubble is better, and you will have fewer and less +EV pushing situations. It is more difficult to make it ITM as a short stack, since you have less FE and fewer stealing opportunities. Unarmed is saying that he feels as a shortie he needs to double-up in order to make it ITM.

Because this is his assessment of the overall tournament situation (which I agree with), it is +"tournament EV" to prefer the KQ over the 74. They may have equal "hand EV" for the chips results at the end of that hand and that hand only, but one situation is clearly preferable over the other in the tournament as a whole.

Eastbay, I think this means you are correct, that this whole post is a conclusion derived from the assumption that short-stacks are overvalued by ICM. The way tournaments play, I personally believe this is true for the mid-to-higher level buy-ins, but not for the lower-level buy-ins, for the reasons stated above.

At the $55's, where I currently play, I agree with Unarmed, I prefer the KQ UTG push over the 74 SB push.

[llabb]

One other thing, you were wondering about the practical application of this. I believe this means at the mid-to-high buy-ins, you should not pass up these UTG opportunities. Such as your KQ example, or Degen's A9 example a few days ago. A good reason for this is that the 74 example is less likely to come about, since it is less likely to be folded around to you.

However, you should in fact pass on these opportunities at the lower buy-ins, from what I have read by other posters. I think Lorinda has said to pass on these UTG marginal opportunities, in part because there is a greater edge later in the lower buy-ins. It is more likely to be folded around to you, and there are greater +EV opportunities closer to the bubble, whereas there are fewer ar the higher buy-ins. This is perhaps why Lorinda can successfully be tighter than other 2+2'ers at different buy-in levels, who need to be more liberal with their pushing ranges and marginal +EV opportunities.

First off, good post. I think discussions about misinterpreting/overlooking mathematical/ICM/PT hands should be implemented far more than they have been. But Unarmed, i think you are overestimating your "doubling up" equity.

For instance, KQo vs A2o=74o vs A2. Taking that into consideration, I think you are wrong. But, I would like some further discussion about this. I am still unsure.

Suge

[axeshigh]

[ QUOTE ]


For instance, KQo vs A2o=74o vs A2. Taking that into consideration, I think you are wrong. But, I would like some further discussion about this. I am still unsure.

Suge

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, sometimes he calls with TT or 77 and you look really stupid with 74o. (yes, obvious, but what is your point anyway?)

[WebGuySteve]

DISCLAIMER: Not only am I not an ICM nerd, I really don't even know the math behind it [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Let me give my shot at putting this into my own words:

He is saying that when there are many people left with large blinds and everyone has about the same amount of chips, it is FAR better to gain a large stack than take the 300 chips in blinds. If he is pushing KQ from UTG he is very likely to be called, however, he has a decent chance of winning. This is where, say, .2% EV comes into play. If you push 74o from the SB, sure, it's +EV, say, .3%, however, this EV comes from the fact that he's folding a lot. You're going to take both of them, however, you prefer the .2% of the KQ because a large stack at this point in the SnG gives you a much better opportunity to put the pressure on the smaller stacks.

Also, when there are 6-7 people left, stealing the blinds isn't going to really give you a better chance of making it into the money than if there are 4 people left.

By the way, I agree with this completely, and it is how much of my thought process is done when playing.

[quote it is FAR better to gain a large stack than take the 300 chips in blinds. If he is pushing KQ from UTG he is very likely to be called, however, he has a decent chance of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

why does he have a "decent chance of winning" if he is called...as opposed to 74o vs a calling hand...like i said before, 74o=KQo vs A2...And i am using A2 bc i consider that the worst hand he would call with.