ICM Thoughts

[Unarmed]

DISCLAIMER: I'm not an ICM nerd.

I'm going to be talking about the ICM EV of an exact situation, static EV if you will. I'm not interested in talking about true overarching EV, the type that includes stuff like how pushing and winning makes me feel happy, which makes me play better, so I should include that impact in my calculations.

Anyway...

When calculating the ICM EV of a push, there are two value components:
1) The percentage of times everyone folds
2) The percentage of times you are called and win

I think we're all sort of aware of one side of this. Like, if I have KTs in the SB and 14BB, its a clear push by EV. However, I normally pass on it because I don't want to risk busting at that stage. Put another way, a ton of that situations EV is coming from 2) and with a decent stack, I don't really like to put myself at risk of busting.

I'm more interested in the other side of the equation. Say I'm a shortish stack 6 or 7 handed. Now I don't really mind busting, I'm way more interested in doubling up off someone. Therefore, when faced with an equal EV situation, say 74o in the SB, and KQs UTG (just assume you have calling ranges locked and the EV of the two is equal), I should NOT be indifferent between the two. I should be happier to take the KQs because a greater % of its EV comes from its ability to double through someone. I *think* this can be expanded to say that I'd rather take the KQs with 0.2% EV over the 74o and 0.3% EV, and if that's true perhaps I should be willing to take KQs and slight -EV for the chance to double through?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are two components of the ICM EV numbers we get when analyzing pushes, and that we should be aware of that, at the very least. Also, it is intirely possible that this post makes zero sense. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

are you saying that its right to pass up on these overlooked +ev situations, or that we need to take advantage of them?

[axeshigh]

I don't play by ICM exactly either. I try to identify the situations in which I need to double up, and those in which it would be more profitable just to steal the blinds, and try to play accordingly. Good post.

I am not an ICM nerd either. I think you're right given the situation you explain. When it's 6 or 7 handed doubling up gains you more equity than when the table is 4 handed. At the same time, if you can be *certain* about everyone elses calling range and you still have a negative EV than you should fold because ICM takes into account the "handedness" (to use Eastbay's term) of the table.

On the other hand, I am not sure that SNGPT takes into account your position relative to the blinds. So, using your example, it might be correct to bush with KQs under the gun even if it's negative EV because the model MIGHT (i don't know for sure) not take into account that you'll be posting the BB the next hand.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, when faced with an equal EV situation, say 74o in the SB, and KQs UTG (just assume you have calling ranges locked and the EV of the two is equal), I should NOT be indifferent between the two. I should be happier to take the KQs because a greater % of its EV comes from its ability to double through someone.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Explain please.

eastbay

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, when faced with an equal EV situation, say 74o in the SB, and KQs UTG (just assume you have calling ranges locked and the EV of the two is equal), I should NOT be indifferent between the two. I should be happier to take the KQs because a greater % of its EV comes from its ability to double through someone.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Explain please.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

At this stage of the tournament he is not looking to steal the blinds and maintain his stack he's looking for the best gamble to double it up, so he prefers a hand with greater showdown value at the expense of a loss of folding equity.

I'll give my own thoughts later.

[pergesu]

I think what he's saying is that when you have a very small stack, pushing and picking up 1.5 BB isn't going to be incredibly beneficial to you. You would much prefer to double up than pick up the blinds.

The idea then is that when you push from the SB with a bad hand, most of your EV comes from the likelihood that your opponent will fold. When you push from UTG, most of your EV comes from your ability to double up, which would give you a better chance to win the thing and steal more blinds.

Here's my issue with this. Unarmed calls it "static EV" or something like that, which I interpretted to mean the value of that single hand. If that's the case, then I think this makes no sense, because a +.3% edge is better than a +.2% one. If you look at it in terms of the rest of the tourney though, he may be on to something because the times you double up you're able to create many more +EV situations, or at least wait for some more.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, when faced with an equal EV situation, say 74o in the SB, and KQs UTG (just assume you have calling ranges locked and the EV of the two is equal), I should NOT be indifferent between the two. I should be happier to take the KQs because a greater % of its EV comes from its ability to double through someone.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Explain please.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

At this stage of the tournament he is not looking to steal the blinds and maintain his stack he's looking for the best gamble to double it up, so he prefers a hand with greater showdown value at the expense of a loss of folding equity.

I'll give my own thoughts later.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only way I can make any sense of this is to assume that the implication here is really that short stacks are overvalued by ICM (therefore the so-called "same EV" isn't really). I think that's a debatable question, but I think this is a strange way to frame that question.

Or maybe I'm not getting the point yet, it's hard to tell.

eastbay

[stupidsucker]

I think maybe he means

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.

for example..lets use a ridiculous hypothetical. Lets say there is a lotto. you pick 1 number between 1-1,000,000 and if your number is picked you win $1.5 million. If every entry costs $1, but you can only play once a day it just isnt worth it. in the short run without being lucky. In poker you can pass on high bust + EV situations and pick up another +EV situation with lower variance.

Maybe I am waaaaaay off.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I think maybe he means

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 ]

He seems to be saying the opposite - that you should prefer the higher risk play.

eastbay