ICM, calling down small stacks, etc.

There is a post: $11: lvl4 is this a easy call?

I do think it's a correct call, but it raises an interesting point about the 'idempotent-ness' of ICM type calculations if one's not careful.

In other words, a play can be overall +equity on the first-order (the literal weighted sums of outcomes vs. ICM equity), and at the same time, there could be 'components' of that equity sum that are derived from scenerios that leave you with less true equity than the loss of the chips by reducing the equity value of your future transactions.

In other words, the 'loss' component of his net equity of the linked thread is the difference in equity before he lost the chips compared with after doubling the guy through. However, the extend of the loss in equity extends beyond that, as second order maneuvers will now have less equity due to a substantial drop in folding equity. That doesn't necessarily make the call incorrect, but it leaves me wondering.... in fact, anything that alters your opponents calling ranges (via change in image, change in stack sizes, etc.) could alter the 'true' nth-order equity of a scenerio signifigantly.

When is a first-order calculation sufficient? Maybe nth order considerations are not statistically signifigant and should be lobbed off...

Hmm. Discuss if you would.

[pineapple888]

We've been over this a few times in the past.

There are second-order effects, and part of your job as a good poker player is to take those into account in future hands.

These effects could influence your *current* decision in a marginal situation.

If I'm the big stack, hammering on the small stacks, I'll fold a marginal hand sometimes to keep them meek.

But it has to be marginal, because I'm not passing up a big +EV situation for possibly ephemeral future gains.

Sorry, I'm relatively new.

Thanks

[mosdef]

I think most people have a "cut-off" at which they accept the ICM +EV. In other words, they have a level in mind that serves as an estimate for their future +EV, and the ICM +EV of any given hand has to outweigh that before they'll take on the risk.

That makes a lot of sense.