Quote:
I'm thinking ICM would be more accurate if it is calculated and a strategy is formed. Then repeatedly recalculated to get closer to what is actually the best strategy.
This has been done for slightly simplified tournaments, but you basically need to tweak the tournament rules to limit the number of possible stack setups throughout the tournament. This can be done by making sure all stacks stay at multiples of a small blind at all times.
An alternative offered by some ICM calculators is FGS, which works for arbitrary stack setups and takes into account the strategy for the next few rounds. It's a fairly significant improvement over vanilla ICM, even if you can only simulate a few rounds of play.
Quote:
I think I heard something about the short stack at a final table rarely ever gets first place. I think short stacks play too nitty and large stacks play too loosely, but it is justifiable since the short stacks aren't calling off enough.
If you are interested in details, I looked into this in some detail back in 2015. You can find a comparison of "full tournament" strategies to ICM/FGS below, as well as the finishing probabilities for various stack sizes under optimal play (7.3 and 7.4, starting pg 40):
https://www.holdemresources.net/misc...ity_models.pdf
(First few pages are in German, rest is in English
)
Cliffs regarding winning chances: In a 50/30/20 structure with 3-5 players, large stacks win more than their chip-proportional share of the time under optimal push/fold play, medium stacks win less than their proportional share.
Last edited by plexiq; 09-20-2018 at 04:35 AM.