ICM/SNGPT rambling thoughts(long)

[ZeroPointMachine]

Some random thoughts on ICM, +$EV situations and eastbay’s analyzer.

I think there is quite a bit of confusion and misunderstanding regarding ICM and its use in analyzing SNG situations. This is not meant as a criticism of the model or eastbay’s excellent program. However, people seem to forget that it is a model. It is a method of simplifying a complex situation in order to draw some useful conclusions. It is not the magic infallible push-o-meter that some people seem to believe it is.

There are posts everyday to the effect of “if it’s +$EV you must push”. There are several flaws in this thinking.

#1 Eastbay has arbitrarily set +.5% $EV and <10 BB as a “comfort level” to push. These are best guesses to cover the widest range of situations. But they are not perfect mathematical calculations.

#2 Each push/fold decision in a SNG is not a series of independent trials. You are not paid for each result. This is different from a +EV blackjack play or even a +EV play in a ring game. A +$EV push is part of a series of decisions and often carries a significant risk of ruin.

Let me try to illustrate this with an example:

I offer you a dice game. You pay $10 to play. On a roll of 1-5 you win $3. On a roll of six you lose. Good bet? But you have to roll the dice 15 times before you can collect and if you roll a six you lose all your winnings and your $10 entry. Still a good bet? How many required rolls would make this a good game for you? Or if you have to roll the dice 15 times how high does the +EV on each roll have to be to make it a good game?

I just pulled these numbers out of the air. But, I think they illustrate the point.

How many +0.5% $EV pushes can you make a game before the risk of ruin becomes insurmountable?

Can the games be beaten by pushing every time the push-o-meter says +0.5%EV?
At the 10-30 level absolutely (and beaten pretty hard). But the ROI will not be optimal. Multi tabling can offset the difference and this may be the best way to play with 8 or more tables.(I’ve never played more than 4)
I can’t speak for the higher levels.

I guess my point is that pushing a -$EV situation is always bad. However, folding a +$EV push is not necessarily bad.

I think the system could possibly be refined. One way to do this is to adjust the +0.5% EV cutoff based on stack size. Maybe the number should be different if the move carries no risk of ruin (you can’t be knocked out or crippled) versus when it does. I think many of the top players make these adjustments on the fly. They know that they don’t need to make a particular play even if it is +$EV. They know that 8-9 BB is different from 4-5BB and make adjustments.

I’m not an expert on any of this and I maybe a complete moron. I did not intend to speak for eastbay’s thought processes as many of them are probably over my head. I just felt this was a topic that could use some discussion.

I’m going to lunch now. You have an hour to flame away.

[jedinite]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...14&fpart=1

similar topic on a subset of your post. I think for starters that just about everyone can agree that what is traditionally regarded as a +$EV push (based on traditional bubble calling standards) can quickly turn -EV if people are drastically losening calling standards based upon your frequent application of the pushbot strategy (primarily if you're not showing down hands so they especially feel you're pushing with anything).

If the bubble pushbot strategy turns in to people routinely calling with top 50% the whole strategy will have to be rethought. Are we there yet? Not at the $22 and $33 where I play right now, for sure. Certainly not at the $11. Higher levels headed there soon? Maybe...

[applejuicekid]

[ QUOTE ]
If the bubble pushbot strategy turns in to people routinely calling with top 50% the whole strategy will have to be rethought

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong, but I think this is incorrect. Calling with the top 50% is not how to defend proper bubble play. I do not think they are doing this at higher levels. Someone please correct if I am wrong.

[jwesty5]

[ QUOTE ]
If the bubble pushbot strategy turns in to people routinely calling with top 50% the whole strategy will have to be rethought. Are we there yet? Not at the $22 and $33 where I play right now, for sure. Certainly not at the $11. Higher levels headed there soon? Maybe...

[/ QUOTE ]

I routinely see people calling with top 50% hands at the 11's. Sometimes worse than that.

This is very incorrect. +EV is +EV is +EV. The one point that you hinge on that's correct is that a push could be +EV on a specific hand but then widen calling ranges on later hands, which would lessen your ability to push. However, as most correct bubble pushes are very blatantly +EV, given that you're not playing against a complete maniac, you're unlikely to run into a situation in which one close bubble decision closely follows another. Thus, slighty widening your opponents' calling ranges is probably a small enough factor to ignore.

Again, arguments that say that +EV plays are incorrect are inherently wrong by definition of EV, with the notable but hopefully atopical exception of gambler's ruin. Don't play above your bankroll, and squeeze as much EV out of your play as possible.

[jedinite]

[ QUOTE ]
This is very incorrect. +EV is +EV is +EV.

[/ QUOTE ] Avoiding .5+$EV now for >.5$EV tomorrow if we can only make one of the two is also very much a truth.

So what's really being said here (I think) is that more widespread knowledge of the pushbot strategy (and/or frequent losening of calling standards by people who've seen you push three of the last four hands) might change what ICM calculates as a +$EV play to a -$EV play based on the revised calling standards - or that sometimes pushing a very small +$EV play is incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]
sometimes pushing a very small +$EV play is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong by definition. We play poker to get as much EV as possible.

+EV is good. +EV is good. +EV is good.

That's it (except for gamblers' ruin).

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, arguments that say that +EV plays are incorrect are inherently wrong by definition of EV, with the notable but hopefully atopical exception of gambler's ruin. Don't play above your bankroll, and squeeze as much EV out of your play as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about situations where there is an expected greater +EV event in the near future, like the proverbial coinflip example in TPFAP?

[ZeroPointMachine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, arguments that say that +EV plays are incorrect are inherently wrong by definition of EV, with the notable but hopefully atopical exception of gambler's ruin. Don't play above your bankroll, and squeeze as much EV out of your play as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about situations where there is an expected greater +EV event in the near future, like the proverbial coinflip example in TPFAP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. If you push 10BB because it is +0.6% you risk losing and missing better opportunities later in the tourney. I know I've used the term risk of ruin kind of out of context. I'm not talking about bank roll risk of ruin in the normal context. I'm talking about losing a single tourney buyin risk of ruin.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, arguments that say that +EV plays are incorrect are inherently wrong by definition of EV, with the notable but hopefully atopical exception of gambler's ruin. Don't play above your bankroll, and squeeze as much EV out of your play as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]


What about situations where there is an expected greater +EV event in the near future, like the proverbial coinflip example in TPFAP?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a -EV play. Making a play that gives you +EV now at the sacrifice of EV later can certainly be negative.