Hi All,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzZ7HMU6aSk

Here at the hand starting at exactly 12:57 , Steve Odwyer Raises from the BB and gets 3 bet all in covered by Viktor Blom. Steve calls with KQs against Bloms A10o and gets there.

My question is and in regards to ICM and the tournament final table structure, I feel there is a lot I can learn here as I am rarely calling KQs here as you are flipping with pairs and dominated by Ax hands...

Does this have something to do with ICM that I do not understand? Could someone elaborate maybe. Thanks a ton!!! I am just really not sure how to justify a call here and I know these guys are some of the best in the world.

Have you used icmizer before?
Google, download and take the time to run this hand. There are other tools available also, and other posters may direct you to something better now available which is fine.
Might take an hour to figure how it works and get stacks, payouts input, but you'll learn 1000% more from that exercise than any pat response here (looks fine 4 handed, prob folding KJo, yawn...)

Blocks AK AQ KK QQ, isn't dominated by the other Ax as equities run fairly close, yes flipping with pocket pairs but ahead of other Kx Qx and whatever random bluffs Isildur may show up with.

Cliffs: looks fine, but not sure about KJo..

Blindingly following ICM in these spots is not good. Right now Odwyer is in a very shitty ICM distribution with Haxon covering him on his left and fish2013 being so short stacked. However if he wins that allin he goes in 1st place and is in a prime position to lean on all the other stacks. His future game EV in that case is huge.

KQs is a fold in a pure static ICM calculation, but a pretty clear call if you consider what is likely to happen in future hands. Remember that ICM calculations assume the tournament ends after that hand. That is a very big assumption in the model that can lead to very poor play if blindly applied in practice.

You're one of the most knowledgeable posters in the theory forum, would be a nice boost to this forum is you posted here more.

for my 2 cents.
It seems to me high rollers are more aggressive then ICM advises.
They care about titles and ego wars not pay jumps

Can we infer from this that we should take more chances when medium stacked and OOP to a bigger stack? They can also play (slightly) tighter when in position?

As long as it changes your ICM situation, yes. Of course there's no point in playing significantly wider than pure ICM if a double up would have you remain in the same kind of stack distribution. Yes you are also correct that the big stack should play tighter and not take every marginal spot because it has big EV in future hands as long as the advantageous stack distribution is maintained.

The way too look at it is that when you're in a bad ICM situation your stack isn't worth as much as ICM says it is, because you can't just say "OK I've had enough I'm going to cash out my ICM $ev". In reality you're forced to continue playing in that low EV situation, which is why you should be more inclined to try and get out of it by playing looser. The opposite is true for the big stack.

ICM software is clearly too tight, but you can't ignore the ICM effect entirely. I don't see that his stack put him in that bad a position here, particularly when he was willing to gamble like this. It seems a little loose to me. However, I don't think anyone knows the correct values. It might be easier to call psychologically with KQs, as are not ahead often but rarely in that bad shape.

The stack positions are not that bad. At that hand Issac is not really free from ICM pressure (so it is not the big stack on your left take away all your spots), and the shorty are not that short.

For adjustment I think you add a few combos to the calling ranges but my gut feeling (I don't have HRC subscribed) is you add way too much combos if KQs is a call.