Offshoot of Heads up Theory Post

[Jman28]

The theme I'm getting at in my heads up theory post is not a very complicated one, and maybe not even that controversial of one.

It is simply that there are factors not taken into account by ICM. By thinking a little outside the box, I think we can come up with some of these.

Here's another example, which I believe to be more clearcut, and maybe totally different.

4 Handed

Hero (BB): 2200
SB: 2700
Button: 2300
UTG: 2800
Blinds are 150/300

UTG pushes.
Hero has ATo and magically knows his opponents range is exactly 22+,A2+,K2+,Q7+,Q5s+.

Now ICM has this as basically nuetral EV. (At a $109 this costs you 3 cents)

I think this should be almost a clear call, for a couple reasons.

a) Calling and losing ends your game instantly (increasing hourly rate)
b) Calling and winning (58% of the time) is more +EV than ICM thinks because after it, chip stacks will look like this:

BB: 600
Hero (sb): 4550
Button: 2550
UTG: 2300

I won't go into to much detail here, but I think most experienced SnG players will see the advantage of a chip situation like the one above. Basically, your folding equity against the two medium stacks will be extremely high, and you will often get the smaller stack to fold most hands too, hoping for a call behind him.

Lemme know what you think.

*I know this is a simplification. I know that you have some +EV by surviving simply because of your skill edge. Also there is extra +EV when you win since you will be pushed on less after showing the will to call with ATo. There are tons of small factors like this.

Edit: I hope this doesn't look like an attempt to 'debunk' ICM. That's not at all what it is. ICM is great.

[eastbay]

I think this is kind of old news.

A quality post along these lines would postulate a better equity than the ICM value, and offer possibilities for modifying the formula to move equity closer to that value in this context without having other undesirable effects in other contexts.

You didn't even bother to mention what the ICM equity was and what you think out to actually be closer to.

eastbay

[Jman28]

Me: [ QUOTE ]
Here's another example, which I believe to be more clearcut

[/ QUOTE ]
You: [ QUOTE ]

I think this is kind of old news.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't going for anything groundbreaking here. Like I said, I wanted to show a situation where we could all agree that ICM doesn't account for a significant advantage. I did this to offer evidence for the idea that there may be other situations like this which are less obvious.

[ QUOTE ]

A quality post along these lines would postulate a better equity than the ICM value, and offer possibilities for modifying the formula to move equity closer to that value in this context without having other undesirable effects in other contexts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, I apologize that my post wasn't a quality post.

Next, I don't believe there is a better equity calculator than ICM. All of the situations I'm describing are very player/situation specific. To create a formula to calculate this would be virtually impossible.

I think the best way to go about implementing my ideas is to use ICM, and then make your own approximations when situations like the ones I layed out arise.

You: [ QUOTE ]

You didn't even bother to mention what the ICM equity was

[/ QUOTE ]

Me: [ QUOTE ]
Now ICM has this as basically nuetral EV. (At a $109 this costs you 3 cents)

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, the equity of a push is -0.003%.

You:[ QUOTE ]
and what you think out to actually be closer to.

[/ QUOTE ]
Me: [ QUOTE ]
I think this should be almost a clear call

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, the equity of a push should really be >+0.0%

How much? I didn't calculate. I'll admit it. I thought of an idea and posted that thought on an internet poker forum to bounce it off my peers without even figuring out the exact equity I was talking about.

You caught me dude. You caught me red handed and naked. I'm embarrased. about my nudity.

[microbet]

There has been some discussion about how having a stack that is around 1 BB or so at the table warps ICM. I'm not really sure whether it works in your favor or not here. I know you are salivating over how tight your opponents should be here, and they will be tight, but almost certainly they will not be as tight as they should.

Wouldn't we be more likely to have more equity than ICM predicts in situations where our opponents are folding too much?

[microbet]

This has probably been talked about, but have you or anyone else that you know worked on estimating equity from simulations in a very limited situation like HU with small stack/blind ratios?

I know there were a couple huge threads about this that were largely a discussion between you and The Shadow. Ok, I'll look it up, but I'm posting this anyway. Feel free to yell at me.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
This has probably been talked about, but have you or anyone else that you know worked on estimating equity from simulations in a very limited situation like HU with small stack/blind ratios?

I know there were a couple huge threads about this that were largely a discussion between you and The Shadow. Ok, I'll look it up, but I'm posting this anyway. Feel free to yell at me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I have done quite a bit of work in this direction.

If anyone else is as nuts as I am to write full-scale preflop simulators, they don't seem nuts enough to share it or whatever they find. At least I've never come across it.

And people wonder why I get grumpy. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

eastbay

[Jman28]

So, do we all agree that this makes sense and is a clear call then?

[microbet]

Not clear to me, yet.

BTW, the stacks after you win yield icmEV of .36, which is pretty good.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
Not clear to me, yet.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well you should talk to eastbay, who said this was 'old news'

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not clear to me, yet.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well you should talk to eastbay, who said this was 'old news'

[/ QUOTE ]

It's old news that some people think ICM underestimates value on the bubble with a big stack (I think adanthar is always harping on this). I didn't say I necessarily agreed, although a reasonable case can be made for it.

Some of the longest strategy threads ever have been exactly about this.

eastbay