|
|
#21
10-31-2005, 08:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
[ QUOTE ]
Of course the difference is that ICM might be wrong altogether [/ QUOTE ] It's a REALLY REALLY REALLY good approximation of a skilless game and works perfectly well for all practical applications. 
|
|
#22
10-31-2005, 08:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
You are getting farther, not closer. This needs to be clarified: ICM does not include anythihng about "hand ranges." The Independent Chip Model is just a way of taking chip stacks in a tournament, where the chips are entirely worthless $-wise until the tournament is over, and estimating how much these now-worthless chips might represent in terms of $ at the conclusion of the tournament. All this business about hand ranges and stuff is an extension to the analysis whereby we can take the ICM results for several different sets of chips stacks, usually related by a scenario where you either win or lose a hand, and compare the different outcomes in terms of $ instead of chips.
ICM's only basis is a clever recursion that represents a common sense approach to valuing tournament chips. My chance of winning first prize is equal to my fraction of the chips in play. My chance of finishing second is equal to my fraction of the chips in play if you assume each other player wins, based on his fraction of the chips in play, and so on.
|
|
#23
10-31-2005, 08:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] s a fan of Freakonomics, I often have disdain for the common wisdom. [/ QUOTE ] Cute, especially since the ICM approach is similar to the work done in Freakonomics than just playing by intuition. [/ QUOTE ] whoa, icm is like the anti-freakonomics. icm is a model that is invented from thin air, and while plausible, has no empirical backing whatsoever. freakonomics is all about collecting data and interpreting it. [/ QUOTE ] are you being sarcastic? since you said " icm is a model that is invented from thin air" I will assume that you are Also, I recall someone running an experiment where they compared their ICM equity with their actual results. Anyone have a link?
|
|
#24
10-31-2005, 08:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] s a fan of Freakonomics, I often have disdain for the common wisdom. [/ QUOTE ] Cute, especially since the ICM approach is similar to the work done in Freakonomics than just playing by intuition. [/ QUOTE ] whoa, icm is like the anti-freakonomics. icm is a model that is invented from thin air, and while plausible, has no empirical backing whatsoever. [/ QUOTE ] That's entirely untrue. 1) It was created mathematically, which is certainly not from thin air. I doubt any intelligent person who's well versed in science and math would prefer a theory that was derived empirically to one derived mathematically. For example, Special and General Relativity were both invented with little to no regard for experimental data. 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). To everyone: stop making posts like the OP's. If you want to ask questions about this stuff, that's fine, but please don't act like you know what you're talking about if you don't because it detracts from the forum tremendously. There really isn't much of a debate here, and I think it's very -EV for many people who read these forums to think that there is.
|
|
#25
10-31-2005, 09:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
Thanks to all the posters on this thread. I think I better understand the fascination with ICM. The arguments here (and elsewhere) do not convince me of the superiority of ICM over Harrington's book (especially with regards to understanding M).
Clearly we have no major argument early in a tourney. We all try to avoid early confrontations and all-ins. The challenge is how to play once we get down to 5 players. I get there around 64% of my 55s (sample size 106 - reasonable for estimating this percentage). I suspect both systems give us strong clues. I doubt that ICM has a major advantage over M. The key here is understanding when one's back is against the wall. Knowing the range of cards which allow an all-in (which might get called) and understanding when waiting is a bad idea helps one. We have very complex decisions to make with 4 or 5 players left. How strong do we play for 1st or 2nd - or do we go for the money only? We have to judge the changing aggressiveness of the table as the blinds increase. ICM seems like 1 nice method for estimating success. Is it flawed? Of course, any method which depends on math will be incomplete. The original purpose of my post was to stimulate discussion. I have read the FAQ and lurked for the past 3 weeks. I did want to see the arguments both ways. I critiqued ICM as a straw man to see what everyone would say. I think we all agree that reading our opponents is a very necessary skill to compliment our statistical understanding. We love poker because of that blend of statistics and psychology. We never tire of playing poker, because each situation has its own context. Our decision making processes are constantly challenged. This forum has helped me greatly understand the joys of playing SNGs. I have almost stopped playing ring games as the challenge of tournament play are so much greater! Thanks to all the frequent posters who help us make the transition to SNGs. You are making me a +EV player and I appreciate that.
|
|
#26
10-31-2005, 09:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
[ QUOTE ]
(sample size 106 - reasonable for estimating this percentage) [/ QUOTE ] I am sorry I had anything to do with this thread. You win.
|
|
#27
10-31-2005, 09:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
I apologize if you were being sarcastic.
|
|
#29
10-31-2005, 09:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Challenging the basics behind ICM
[ 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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
