Problems with Tournement Theory and ICM

[pineapple888]

Yeah, but big stack against thinking players just doesn't come up that often in Party SnGs.

I play the $215s, and 80% of the time, I'm either playing very simple tight-aggressive (if table is fishy) or pre-flop 2+2 style (fold first three rounds, push with anything reasonable if you are first in afterwards, call a push only with premium hands).

The other 20% of tables, I can actually make some moves on occasion.

On deeper-stacked SnG sites (sometimes), or in MTTs especially, there's much more room for big-stack play. I'd focus on those if you were interested in improving your play in this area.

[eastbay]

If you're looking for something to do to advance the theory, my suggestion would be to pick up the idea I detailed in "ICM with a skill factor" (or something like that) and try applying it along with the usual ICM to some standard SnG scenarios and see if the results change, and how. Try to figure out if it gives better answers than the original formulation.

The second thing which is more complex is the issue that any stack ratio based valuation model is probably going to be insufficient for true expert play at Giga/DN's level because it misses a lot of the strategic subtleties. Relative stack positions (who's to the left and right of who), blind size, and position (and other things) are all things which clearly affect the value of your chips, and yet ICM ignores all of them outright. So, how to start generalizing? I've proposed ways to consider position with a simple discounting approach. But I think you could quickly get lost in complexity where it wasn't clear if you were making progress or just making things foggier and less clear if they made any useful sense.

There is another approach altogether that I hope to return to sometime soon, but I'm not getting into what it is right now.

eastbay

[maddog2030]

[ QUOTE ]
There is another approach altogether that I hope to return to sometime soon, but I'm not getting into what it is right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, come on now, spill the beans. You can't just leave us hanging... Well you can, but that would suck.

Unless it's been discussed in a previous post of yours?

[Moonsugar]

Basically, what I would be most interested in is investigation in the areas where current theory is deficient. But sounds like you are many steps ahead.

I, as well as many on this board, have a bad habit of thinking "well, my tidy little hand strength calculator and ICM equation (or sit-n-go analyzer) tell me for CERTAIN that X is profitable so that is that". Well, it isn't really as simple as that. Not by a mile.

All these tools and theories are great (thanks for your contribution) but they stand in the way of true advancement if we accept them as dogma and don't search for more. That has been the point of the thread and what I have tried to get people to see, that what the truly great players are doing goes against the models and Sklansky etc. I know its near sacrelige on this board, but I was compelled by the devil...

I really appreciate all the work you have done, not trying to demean it at all, eastbay.

Thanks everyone for contributing to the thread I have gotten a lot of useful thoughts.

[lastchance]

ICM gives you a range. There are certainly other factors to look into, but if it's clear, you go with ICM.

[gumpzilla]

This is a pet peeve of mine.

What the great players are doing doesn't go against mathematical formulations of the game at all. The key to making those kinds of plays is excellent reads - what does your opponent have, what do they think you have, what are they going to need to continue based on what they think about the current situation and the information you're giving them? All of this stuff is input that you feed into a mathematical approach. The ICM approach and mathematical analysis practiced here is a great example of garbage in, garbage out; if you put in completely wrong ranges, you're going to get nonsense.

STT is also definitely the wrong forum to talk about plays that Negreanu or Giga make in the MTT realm, because in general the situations are going to be very, very different. Making really fancy plays generally requires opposition that is sophisticated enough to try interpreting the information that you're giving them, which you don't get at low buyin STTs. It frequently also requires relatively deep stacks, so that people have freedom to get away from hands. This is something else you don't really see in STTs. Live play enhances the ability to make good reads. So we can talk about these plays all we want, but they aren't very relevant to the topic of this forum because they aren't much use in online STTs, as a rule.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

I, as well as many on this board, have a bad habit of thinking "well, my tidy little hand strength calculator and ICM equation (or sit-n-go analyzer) tell me for CERTAIN that X is profitable so that is that". Well, it isn't really as simple as that. Not by a mile.


[/ QUOTE ]

Usually it is. Sometimes it isn't. Really depends on what you're talking about.

[ QUOTE ]

All these tools and theories are great (thanks for your contribution) but they stand in the way of true advancement if we accept them as dogma and don't search for more.


[/ QUOTE ]

In my estimation, no one who is actually capable of advancement actually thinks like that, so I think your notion of the theory "standing in the way" of anything is absurd.

Will people misuse theory? Will they misunderstand it? Constantly. I see it every single day on here.

[ QUOTE ]

what the truly great players are doing goes against the models and Sklansky etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

99% of the time I think that's just false. Mostly there is simply confusion about what the theory says or doesn't say.

eastbay

[maddog2030]

[ QUOTE ]
That has been the point of the thread and what I have tried to get people to see, that what the truly great players are doing goes against the models and Sklansky etc. I know its near sacrelige on this board, but I was compelled by the devil...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't necessarily think Sklansky would disagree what was said by Gigabet.

If he has commented, then I'll bite the bullet. But a lot of people seem to throw Sklanksy's name out there to associate him with what a typical player thinks is correct. And this is certainly not the case. Now he did write some of the most famous books on poker, but people often don't understand what he says, or takes a general comment of his as a be all or end all, like DN seems to do on a regular basis.

[Moonsugar]

[ QUOTE ]

What the great players are doing doesn't go against mathematical formulations of the game at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they do on some occasions. Don't take my word for it. Daniel N. (And many others) has said it many times.

The mathematical models we have for the game today are inadequate. It is not simply GIGO. If you don't see that, fine. Most of the scholars in the world used to think it was flat, too.

Now, I agree that many of the situations of a STT are 'solved' by the models that we have today and that some of these solutions are unlikely to change.

One specific problem which may be wrong: 10 players, 1st hand you bet 3xBB with AKo first in from the SB, BB puts you all-in and you see his hand: 22. Current models say you should fold. What I am suggesting is that a player of a certain skill with the bigstack should call the all in.

The reason I posted here is that this forum, I think, has the most members who think most systematically and model-like of all the forums. And it is the one I frequent most these days. Plus, I thought more people would be familiar with the hand and problem I linked in my OP, but I was wrong about that.

[Moonsugar]

You are probably correct. When I said Sklansky I just meant his published comments in TPFAP. Sklansky for sure knows about this. Maybe he has ways to model for it. Would love to see if that were true.