Villain had TAG stats in a small sample: 19/15 in 27 hands.

PokerStars - 150/300 Ante 25 NL - Holdem - 5 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

CO: 8.58 BB (VPIP: 23.53, PFR: 14.58, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 51)
BTN: 27.67 BB (VPIP: 26.92, PFR: 12.50, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 27)
SB: 27.05 BB (VPIP: 18.52, PFR: 14.81, 3Bet Preflop: 11.11, Hands: 27)
Hero (BB): 19.24 BB
UTG: 7.46 BB (VPIP: 14.81, PFR: 8.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 27)

5 players post ante of 0 BB, SB posts SB 0.5 BB, Hero posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.92 BB) Hero has K Q

fold, fold, fold, SB raises to 2.27 BB, Hero calls 1.27 BB

Flop: (4.96 BB, 2 players) 2 8 Q
SB bets 2.13 BB, Hero calls 2.13 BB

Turn: (9.22 BB, 2 players) 2
SB checks, Hero bets 3.75 BB, SB calls 3.75 BB

River: (16.72 BB, 2 players) 8
SB bets 10.87 BB, Hero ???

I can't see many 8x/2x hands in his range but how many busted flush draws and 99-JJ can he have here? Is this a standard sigh-fold with a decent stack and two shorties on the bubble?

River is pretty nasty spot. I guess it's pretty read/stat dependent. Since we're playing a pot control type line on the bubble, I would check back turn and call a river bet. Checking will induce a lot of river bluffs, KQ doesnt need too much protection and it saves us from river spots like this.

Good point, I'm not entirely sure why I bet the turn.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

As played it’s probably a sigh fold. I do agree that you should be checking turn. Not a time to be going for value.

This is a standard 3 bet shove spot pre-flop.

Depends on his opening frequency/calling frequency. He needs to be opening somewhere around 53%+ and only calling off 77+, ATo+. It's really tough to gauge, since some players will call off wider than this and/or open tighter.

I haven't played many 18 mans, so I'm not as familiar with these spots. In game I would probably shove this spot a lot pre. But, after tweaking ranges just slightly in ICMizer2, I realized how quickly this can become a massive spew. I was pretty surprised by that, actually.

In a large MTT I would shove this pre but these are closer to STTs with a big bubble factor and chip preservation being more important.

I have a decent third place 19bb stack on the bubble with 2 shorties at less than 10bb. I think it would be bad to risk my stack here with a shove when I can see a flop in position with a hand that can flop really well.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

Me too. I don´t see any reason to bet turn. I would check back.

ICM is over stated. It has been known for years now that ICM has issues.

ICM fails to take into account the additional value gained in a larger stack.

For instance, here if you win this pot the ICM "measure" of first place is 38%. But if you win and have a stack 1.5x the size of the second place stacks and more than 5x the size of the remaining 3 shorties, you should win 1st more than your "fair share measurement" based on your increased utility of the big stack. Therefore the win half of the ICM measurements will be under estimating your true equity if you win here.

ICM is a tool, but you really must start learning to understand the limitations of this tool.

That's why I play around with so many different ranges and FGS settings to get a feel for these spots. But, I've always hated 18 mans, so it's not my area of expertise. In 180s, I disregard a lot of ICM until it gets 4 handed or so and even then I'm not taking it as gospel. So, I feel ya

Understood, but I'm not sure how to balance this against the cost of busting on the exact bubble. Is it fair to say that ICM is a bigger considerations in SNGs, where the bubble factor is more significant than in MTTs?

You should be making adjustments on the bubble or at FT's of both mtts and sngs. If you're totally disregarding ICM in these spots and taking every +cEV spot, you're going to end up costing yourself a lot of actual money long term.

I would take slightly different strategies in different types of sngs, though. If I were playing 9mans or 18mans, I would pay more attention to $EV calculations on the bubble and ITM. The ICM spots will be easier to solve. In 18mans, while I'm still trying to win, I still go out of my way to min-cash for at least 10% of the prizepool. The chip utility gained by taking bubble risks usually aren't worth it since you won't have much time to exploit the situation. So, in an 18man payout structure with shallow stacks, I don't think the extra utility gained when we win this pot with KQ offsets the increased frequency of bubbling. Not busting to the bigger stack as 2nd/3rd in chips is a bigger deal than you think in this payout structure.

Compare that to a $3r 180, where having a massive stack at a FT is far more useful than in an 18 man. The payouts are much more top heavy and the stacks are much deeper. So, you have more time and more dynamic situations that come up where you can put your chip utility to use and abuse everyone. This is why I disregard ICM in 180s until we are shorthanded (and always gun for a big stack at the final table), but would play pretty strict to ICM in a 9man/18man, where min-cashing has a much bigger significance and bubbling as 2nd/3rd in chips can be disasterous over time.

it really is a fist pump jam pre

Granted, there is really not any way to put a math measure to stack utility, but I would say that any method that leads you to the answer of not being able to shove a hand as strong as KQs over and SB open is absurd and probably should be disregarded.

Granted, if this were a sattlelite bubble, I would accept that answer. But having KQs with 19BBs effective and a SB open, this has to be a shove. If you are not shoving here, your shoving range is so tight that the SB can rape you every time it folds to him.

If they're opening wide and calling tight (like most regs would) it's fine to shove. If they're opening tight or calling wide, it's not. Base it on the player, simple. Even if SB is opening 51%, which a tighter player might not do (OP said he was on the TAG side) and calling off 77+, AT+ (Even some TAG players might call with a few more hands) then :

https://gyazo.com/4d907086e7cb9ce1710470ee4bff0d8f

It gets worse if we put on the FGS. And much worse if we tighten up his opening range further/widen his calling range, etc.

What's the FGS?

Villain was TAG in a small sample but it is worth noting that he raised 2.3x, he didn't just click minraise. That does suggest a thinking player imo. If he is a thinking player, I would expect him to have a wider steal range there and fairly tight calling range. So perhaps shoving is the right play.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

But, what would you consider wide? Would thinking players raise 67%? 55%? 45%? 35%? Do they limp the middle/bottom of their range? Are they raising too much as an exploit? Are they playing a mixed strategy in these spots in the SB?

And what do you consider a tight calling range? Which pairs? Which Ax? Which broadways?

If you think he's raising around 53%+ and only calling <8.4% or so, then go for it.

Based on player types, these ranges can be way off. Nash has SB opening around 67%: (22+,A2+,K2s+,K3o+,Q2s+,Q6o+,J2s+,J7o+,T2s+,T7o+,9 2s+,96o+,84s+,86o+,73s+,76o,63s+,65o,52s+,54o,43s)

and only calling with 8.4%:
(77+, ATo+)

If I change either/both ranges slightly, then it can quickly become a bad jam. I'm only pointing this out so you guys will be aware of these types of things. Also, it doesn't matter that our shove range is pretty tight here, SB still can't go too crazy. We will be able to flat most of our range in position and we have a stack that can damage his a lot, even though he covers us.

Here's some info on FGS (Future Game Simulations) from the ICMizer website: http://www.icmpoker.com/en/blog/how-...culator-works/

As a side note, if you think they are playing close to Nash from the SB here, we can profitably jam half of the deck. And I doubt anyone here is doing anything close to that.

If SB is a thinking player then they’ll know they can also jam insanely wide into you here a non-all-in open here is more likely to be a polarised range.