Problems with Tournement Theory and ICM

Moonsugar · #1 06-07-2005, 01:00 PM

I believe(ed) that SnGs are the simplest form of poker. They have the most advanced mathematical framework (besides HU). Included in this is the ICM theory, central to which is the concept that chips have decreasing marginal utility in a tournement.

But, sometimes I want to throw it all out the window. When you read about wierd plays by Gigabet, , it makes you wonder.

I am one of those 'tight' players who can't turn the 800 into 2000, I just have an extra 800 chips. And I suspect 95+% of posters in this forum are the same, or worse in this regard.

I know in my heart that Daniel N. and Gigabet are right in this concept and that Sklansky et al. are wrong, I just can't 'prove' it. And I don't know how to exploit it.

If you were going to experiment with this concept that chips could have INCREASING marginal utility/value what would you study? What situations would you play differently? How would your approach to SnGs change?

Bigwig · #2 06-07-2005, 01:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I believe(ed) that SnGs are the simplest form of poker. They have the most advanced mathematical framework (besides HU). Included in this is the ICM theory, central to which is the concept that chips have decreasing marginal utility in a tournement.

But, sometimes I want to throw it all out the window. When you read about wierd plays by Gigabet, , it makes you wonder.

I am one of those 'tight' players who can't turn the 800 into 2000, I just have an extra 800 chips. And I suspect 95+% of posters in this forum are the same, or worse in this regard.

I know in my heart that Daniel N. and Gigabet are right in this concept and that Sklansky et al. are wrong, I just can't 'prove' it. And I don't know how to exploit it.

If you were going to experiment with this concept that chips could have INCREASING marginal utility/value what would you study? What situations would you play differently? How would your approach to SnGs change?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the key part you're missing--Gigabet and Daniel N. are MUCH better players than you (and me) and are capable of making VERY advanced reads. They also play this style consistently and are aware that their opponents know how they play, and adjust according.

So Sklansky isn't wrong. And neither is Gigabet or Daniel N. There are different styles and different ways to win. Some (Dan Harrington, Dewey Tomko) are rocks, and some (Gus Hansen) are wild.

Myst · #3 06-07-2005, 01:34 PM

The reason 95% of the poker world doesnt play like Gigabet is being most of us are playing at lower limits where such play does not work as well. At the 22s and 33s, where you have such HORRIBLE opposition, it does not pay off to be fancy. The players dont recognize value bet or a well timed check raise, only their particular hands instrinsic worth. As such, to beat such competition, it is only necessary to play solid poker, wait for a hand thats better than theirs, and get all their money. Sure there are a few solid players where tricky plays will work against them. But they sure arehard to recognize when you are 8 tabling against thousands of other different poker players.

Its different at the 215s and up. Most players are solid and can lay down relatively strong hands. Therefore, a player like Gigabet or Daniel N. can control their competition, b/c the other players will respect whatever hands they represent. Poker becomes less of what you hold, and rather of what you can REPRESENT and whether your opponents will fold or not.

In short, the way Gigabet and Daniel N. play is definitely an artform, relying heavily on reads and well-timed plays. I would LOVE to play that type of poker. But at the limits Im at, its too time consuming and not profitible enough for me to even attempt or consider.

Moonsugar · #4 06-07-2005, 01:35 PM

You are correct that I can't make those reads however you are incorrect and missing the whole theory behind Giga's call in this hand, and how it differs from accepted tournament theory.

curtains · #5 06-07-2005, 01:36 PM

Actually 95% of the poker world does play like Gigabet+Negreanu (okok slight exageration). Unfortunately for them they don't do a very good job.

Moonsugar · #6 06-07-2005, 01:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But at the limits Im at, its too time consuming and not profitible enough for me to even attempt or consider.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the exact thought that has been holding me back and why I am trying this experiment. My profit right now is in the way of further improvemnt. Curtains touched on this in another thread. But he probably thinks my whole line of thinking in the OP in this thread is retarded. LOL.

spentrent · #7 06-07-2005, 01:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You are correct that I can't make those reads however you are incorrect and missing the whole theory behind Giga's call in this hand, and how it differs from accepted tournament theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

At higher levels one can make "weird" -- tricky -- plays because the opposition is capable of folding. At most levels but the highest, players just cannot fold.

When a crafty and loose preflop player calls UTG's raise on the button with a hand like 65o, it's not because HIS hand is 65o, it's because his opponent's hand is AA|KK|AK.

This play has nothing to do with "the increasing/decreasing marginal utility of chips." The players you mention might not even disagree with Sklansky in that regard.

It's all about image, control, and reads for these players.

spentrent · #8 06-07-2005, 01:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You are correct that I can't make those reads however you are incorrect and missing the whole theory behind Giga's call in this hand, and how it differs from accepted tournament theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate. What is this "accepted tournament theory" and what is Giga's motivation for deviating from it? IE, why is he incorrect?

Bigwig · #9 06-07-2005, 01:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Actually 95% of the poker world does play like Gigabet+Negreanu (okok slight exageration). Unfortunately for them they don't do a very good job.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm reminded of a passage in Harrington on Hold Em.

He talks about if you were sitting at a table with Gus Hansen, Daniel Negreanu, and Phil Ivey. Then he says, let's say you're playing with guys who think they're Hansen, Negreanu, and Ivey, but in fact are Moe, Larry, and Curly.

We face the latter much more often than the former.

pineapple888 · #10 06-07-2005, 01:51 PM

Well, in a SnG, the decreasing marginal utility of chips is trivial. If you get all the chips in a SnG, you only get half the prize money. With only 10 players and rapid blind increases, this simple fact completely dominates all other effects.

I think you are confusing this simple mathematical concept with another vital concept: how to play a big stack well. That's a concept about which entire books could be written.

Or, if your point is that ICM doesn't have all the answers, I agree completely. When to go against ICM, or to recognize that your opponents probably will, is part of the artistry of poker.

In a large MTT, OTOH, the mathematical decreasing marginal utility of chips takes a while to become significant, and personal playing styles can take precedence. If you are good with a big stack, it's +EV to take more chances to build one than if you are someone who isn't.