Very interesting view. Thank you for sharing.

This far away from the money, with a stack as short as Daniel had, the value of additional chips will be more or less linear, and ICM will make very little difference. Give him 5x the chips with half as many players and it's a different story.

To those saying it's a clear shove and to just google it, what if Daniel isn't shoving big pairs?

Didn't T7s used to be Daniel's favourite hand?

All i know is Daniel needs to change his youtube page where it says"alltime biggest money earner" or something along those lines.

He still is. He's just also probably high on the list for biggest money loser as well.

But he's got that PokerStars shill money. He could probably lose every tournament he plays for the rest of his life and still not significantly hurt his bottom line.

Not anymore, I'd guess.

yeah there are pretty famous programs that can do this for you.

Just to be clear.

Your belief is that Sontheimer is aware that Negreau is using a GTO shoving range and exploits it by widening his calling range.

Confirm/deny burner account?

pretty insightful.

Yes that's what I'm saying, because DNegs has been making a big song and dance recently about how he's been studying GTO and has reinforced this by telling everyone on his vlogs that against tough opponents he's using GTO but against less tough opponents/in bigger field sizes he is reverting to his previous small ball style, complimented by some GTO.

So Sontheimer IMO is assuming that DNegs is aware of the Nash SB on BB shoving range based on DNegs stack size and the amount already in the middle. As an ice cold poker killer, it also can't have escaped Sontheimer's notice that DNegs might have had some added tilt at that moment due to the floor's error with length of break which DNegs was very demonstrative about.

Whenever you open shove and your opponent calmly calls for a count, there's clearly an increased chance that they are then running all the numbers in their brain and are going to calculate the widest they can possibly call with.

I still believe that this isn't a shove that he would usually make with 19BBs even if he is aware that it's a small +EV chip play, because he's stated that slower structure comps are what he likes, so I don't believe his normal MO is to take such high variance spots, even within the context of him adopting GTO strat versus tough fields. I think that some tilt from the floor's clock error pushed him into going for it with near the bottom of his shoving range and into high variance play territory and then when it busted him, which was unlucky as A6 was a decent enough match up, he could lean on Nash to justify the play as indisputably the best play on offer, which is what he is telling everyone on Twitter and on his vlog.

David Sklansky ITT has supported some of the points I made, such as one needs to look at the future opportunity value of higher edge spots that you might be forgoing by taking a high variance, small edge spot, and that limp or min-ish raise fold cannot be ruled out as viable plays.

He only mentions ICM in respect of being ITM, but IMO ICM is a factor, albeit a smaller one, even when not near to the money. It is what I call IBM, because B comes before C.

A previous poster said that this far away from the money the plus/minus axis of ICM value is very close to linear to the number of chips axis. Well most of the line on the graph is close to linear apart from where the angle suddenly goes very acute when you bust!

I am a total fish in NLHE MTTs aside from when it's playing very shallow when I can hold my own, but having read comments on the shove here and on Twitter, I can see some subtle factors that affect push/fold theory that perhaps some players aren't thinking about, so it wouldn't surprise me if the top German pros and the like have put a lot of study and analysis into this area because if your opponent is using a totally *rigid* Nash push/fold strat then you can analyse to death what Nash claims to be perfect and probably find some little weaknesses and holes in it here and there, plus of course you should be profiling your opponents to fine tune their ranges based on their playing style and on other factors such as if they are tilting, if it's near the end of the day and they are short so want to double up or go home, and on anything else you might detect or work out in game.

"Never make a bad shove again", might not be as accurate as it claims to be!

19bb effective, BvB with antes in play? If we employ a mixed strat (of limping or min-raising the top of our range, along with limping or min-raising the bottom of our range, and shoving the middle of our range)... then this results in the ability to limp/min-raise hands like 72o and 83o along with our premium pairs.

In other words, T7s remains in the middle "shove it in" range.

It's thin, and the question of shoving or not depends on how much edge we're looking for (as Sklansky alludes earlier, versus weak fields we should look for a higher edge in our shoves cuz we can wait around and likely find better spots). But, in this field we should probably take any edge we can get.

That appears logical, and in some ways is, however the shove is more profitable in terms of +chip EV as a stand alone play against a weaker player who only calls 12% than it is against a strong player who calls 25% and if this is our attitude in a tough field to basically seize on any tiny edge, high variance spot to negate our opponents' overall skill edge then we probably shouldn't be entering this comp in the first place, particularly when there is 8.7% juice to cover (I mis-stated it as 8% earlier) and more so if our backers paid more than 1.0 for a piece of us.

Making this play is reminiscent of trying to exchange Queens in chess because our opponent is much better than us.

There's an old guy like this at my local card room. Worst player in the place and constantly trying to give advice and "teach" everyone. People humor him but it gets old fast.

It's not to negate their skill edge. It's because that's the type of edges we get in tough fields.

Siegal, Einhorn, Shakerchi, (and Katz and Saloman possibly) were the pro's edge and theoretical compensation for the 8.7% juice. Whether these players' negative skill edge is enough to fully compensate though, I don't know.

It's possible that I am looking at this in the wrong way,.... but I am tightening up my open shove range blind on blind against a player who I think is calling 25% and if was to think "oh, well it can't ever be that bad here according to Nash so f*** it, if I'm called I'm like 38/62 on average anyway so it's a chance to win chips off a better player than me",...... then well I shouldn't be entering the comp in the first place, I should be moving down to a lower skill level field than this one.

Targeting the weaker players first, and avoiding small edge and/or high variance spots against the stronger players is a better strategy IMO. You can deal with and butt heads with the stronger players later on, by which time some of them will have knocked each other out, and by which time you are more likely to have realised some of your ICM into real money.

Until that point play a stronger range, and lower variance if possible, strat against the stronger players.

You don't sit in a cash game thinking I must do everything possible to exploit 1.25 big blinds from the strongest player at the table, because that would be decreasing the utility of your money.

Sage post #1740 refers to you. Use this information.

Counter arguments please > personal attacks.

I am questioning conventional, or what might simply be plain wrong poker theory, that some are supporting.

It's already very obvious if you look at the views of all ITT that this was not a nailed on open shove, it is more complex than that.

You've been presented arguments, you've presented yours. We get it, can we move along now?

I know! This has not been true for 12 hours and 47 minutes now!! It was 12 hours and 46 minutes when I started writing this post!!! The clock is ticking!!!! And he still hasn't changed it!!!!! What a loser!!!!!!

"All Time Tournament Earnings Leader" represents Negreanu's INTENTION. He has no obligation or responsibility to change that title despite what Bonomo has done.

Danny. I hope you're reading this. You don't need to change that title. You don't have to. You have every right to keep it. The right to set intention and declare it to the public is your right. Keep that title. It will become a self fulfilling prophecy. Remember what Henry Ford said: "Whether you believe you can or believe you can't, you're right."

Or AJ like Smith limped in with last night

This isn't true at this stage of the tournament. Daniel had about 2% of the chips in play, which gives him about 2% equity in the prize pool. If he doubled up, he would have about 4% of the chips in play, and about 4% equity in the prize pool. If he busted, he would have 0% equity in the prize pool. It's basically linear all the way including the point where you have 0 chips.

Now, if Daniel had 20% of the chips in play instead if 2%, this is a different story, since obviously having 40% of the chips doesn't give you 40% equity, as this is basically 1st place money, while 0 chips still gives you 0 equity.

It is true that someone with a very short stack may realistically have greater equity than their chip count would suggest merely because their shoves will almost always create protected pots with dead money in them. And this is not accounted for by ICM. But you actually have to shove your stack in to get this benefit.

I think your own explanation disproves your own conclusion about the 2% of chips in play stack.

I also think that 2% of chips in play has more than 2% of equity in the prize pool (ICM), due to some of the field having already busted.

If the ICM (growth) line as it moves to the right of the graph starts to flatten off in angle, as in the example you gave of 20% of the chips in play compared to 40% of the chips in play, then it must also be flattening off in some or many places at the lower percentage of the chips in play levels too, albeit only by a relatively small amount.

If DNegs wins the all in and increases his stack from ~3M to ~6.3M his new ICM value is not 2.1x what it was before he shoved, nor is his new ICM value 1.133x higher than pre shove if the villain folds and his stack has increased from ~3M pre shove to ~3.4M, it is less than 2.1x and 1.133x in each case respectively, whereas when he shoves, is called and loses his ICM obviously decreases by exactly 100%.

It is not much less than linear, but it is a little less.

If what I am saying is incorrect, which I don't rule out, then it could only be explained if the ICM line/curve is linear, linear, linear and then all of a sudden near to the money has a big spike or a variety of spikes that are in tune with the pay jumps etc. The graph may well in fact look something like this, but I still don't think that the rest of the graph is linear at the early and mid stages of a comp.

(some of it's non linear look might also be explained by the very sharp drop from a tiny stack down to no chips at all, but I think this only accounts for a small part of it)

Perhaps someone can post what the real ICM graph looks like?

One logical reason behind my belief of this is that if I was backing players, in say a 1000 runner field when it's early or mid stages and the average stack is 10,000 chips, I would instinctively prefer to have 4 players each with 2500 chips, than one player with 10000 chips. Again, I could be wrong about this.

Similarly, if a comp was a $10K buy in, 10K chips and I was given the option to instead buy in up to 4 times, into the very same comp, for $2.5K each time and get 2.5K chips, when the rest of the field all had to buy in for $10K, 10K chips, I would snap take the 4 x $2.5K option.

Fundamental to ICM not being linear is that smaller stacks have a disproportionate amount of leverage for their "cost", compared to bigger stacks, and, you can obviously have a small stack but still cash higher than a bigger stack than you. E.g. by laddering either deliberately or by just the natural way other players are knocking each other out.

Players are generally only thinking about and making decisions based on ICM when they are ITM or very close to it, which I think is a strategic oversight.

That's because ICM is at its core a money-laddering concept, like how the 2 deep stacks at a final table should try to avoid each other because it's a catastrophe if one busts while 3 shortstacks on crumbs are still around.

There's no ICM considerations when you are this far away from the bubble, much less money jumps. In this case only top 5 are paid and 16 still remain, so saying there are ICM considerations is pretty LOL.

There are many ways to analyze the T7s shove BvB, but with 16 players left and only 5 money spots, ICM is not one of them. Especially with Danny's 20bb chip count at the time.

If only 7 players left then ok, your play is dictated by the shorter stacks at table, i.e. ICM.