Challenging the basics behind ICM

[wahooriver]

I have been trying to understand this forum's fascination with ICM. Certainly, ICM represents the "common wisdom" here.

As a fan of Freakonomics, I often have disdain for the common wisdom. As a long time statistics geek, I always wonder about the underpinnings of any statistical model.

ICM works perfectly if assumptions are met. But assumptions are NEVER met. I have never played at a table where everyone had the same skill level. 2 very good players will play hands very differently. We all develop styles of play (and hopefully know when to vary those styles).

ICM does not take context into consideration. Has the villian been stealing the blinds at every opportunity? How loose are the other players? Who just had a bad beat? How do the other players assess my play (am I considered tight and solid or loosey goosey)?

ICM has great theoretical underpinnings, but SNGs are much more complex than simply calculating a number.

Decision making of any type relies on context. I suggest that all poker players should read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. In many ways the decision making concepts that he discusses can relate to poker.

Intuition works, even in poker. You start to recognize situations and can make good decisions based on those intuitions.

4 handed, you are the small stack in the BB - 1400 chips after seeing the blind (200). The button goes all-in (4th time in 5 hands). He has 3300 chips. You have KQ unsuited - what do you do and why?

Can ICM give you the answer? <font color="purple"> </font>

[Nicholasp27]

icm isn't perfect, it's just a model


however, we do take most of those things into consideration


if villian is stealing blinds at every opportunity, then we adjust his pushing range
if the other players are loose, we adjust their calling ranges
if someone just had a bad beat and u think he's gonna tilt, then adjust his range
if u think their range changes based on their perception of me, then adjust them accordingly


using icm is only as good as its inputs...it's up to u to be as accurate as possible in determining the villians' calling/pushing ranges

[applejuicekid]

[ 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 ]
ICM does not take context into consideration. Has the villian been stealing the blinds at every opportunity? How loose are the other players? Who just had a bad beat? How do the other players assess my play (am I considered tight and solid or loosey goosey)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it does. You can apply hand ranges for your opponents based on this information.

You can also make adjustments when using ICM. If a decision is close you can factor in your skill level advantage to make the correct action. Actually, this is done all the time on these baords.

ICM is the model used to calculate equity based on chip stacks. In your entire post you have not given a legitmate argument other than assumptions are never met. This has been discussed many times before and you are not bring anything new to the argument.

[schwza]

[ 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.

[applejuicekid]

[ 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?

[ 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.

[wahooriver]

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.

[applejuicekid]

[ QUOTE ]
(sample size 106 - reasonable for estimating this percentage)

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sorry I had anything to do with this thread. You win.

[mlagoo]

[ QUOTE ]
sample size 106 - reasonable for estimating this percentage

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I have read the FAQ

[/ QUOTE ]

you sho bout dat?

[FlyWf]

What the hell are you talking about? ICM and M aren't competing standards.

Are you trolling?