07-22-2014 , 06:48 PM
lol sorry, i forget im not texting hahaha
07-22-2014 , 06:52 PM
also plaaynde, u cant be scared of the big stack, as the smaller stack ur chips have a higher value per chip. so u use icm to determine if its worth to shove or not basically (or call). if you can lets say chip up 20% of ur stack by shoving any random 4 cards n they fold a good amout of the time then thats a good play. even if ur a 20% underdog in the hand coz u shoved any 4 on the button the play is probs worth it depending on ur stack size.
07-22-2014 , 07:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by biood1
[ ] ICM has leaks.
It's a basic maths formula so technically that is correct.

There are however issues in that it cannot take into consideration present blind levels. It would come up with the same \$ev decision if we were 3 handed and 15/30 blinds as it would if we were 75/150.

It's calculation is very dependent on knowing villain's range precisely, something which isn't easy if the villain concerned is not a regular.

Even those that have done a lot of calcs, have a "feeling" for the correct decision in the vast majority of spots, but you obviously still need to guesstimate whether a decision is +\$ev in game because the calculation cannot be done in game.

If you therefore believe that ICM is the Holy Grail, you need to do some further reading.

I have had discussions with the most successful player at hypers, bokkie, and he applies standard ev in certain situations ahead of ICM.
07-23-2014 , 06:26 AM
Poker Stars, \$1.40 Buy-in (10/20 blinds, 2 ante) No Limit Omaha H/L Tournament, 6 Players

BTN: 500 (25 bb)
Hero (SB): 500 (25 bb)
BB: 500 (25 bb)
UTG: 500 (25 bb)
MP: 500 (25 bb)
CO: 500 (25 bb)

Preflop: Hero is SB with A A 3 3
UTG calls 20, MP folds, CO calls 20, BTN folds, Hero raises to 498 and is all-in, 2 folds, CO calls 478 and is all-in

Flop: (1,048) T 9 T (2 players, 2 are all-in)

Turn: (1,048) 7 (2 players, 2 are all-in)
Ok, I've had it

River: (1,048) 7 (2 players, 2 are all-in)
Necessary to twist the knife in the wound?

Results: 1,048 pot
Final Board: T 9 T 7 7
Hero showed A A 3 3 and lost (-500 net)
CO showed 7 6 3 7 and won 1,048 (548 net)
Congrats, I guess

Last edited by plaaynde; 07-23-2014 at 06:38 AM.
07-23-2014 , 08:40 AM
then streity, show me 1 situation where ICM is off.
07-23-2014 , 09:51 AM
I've made an own icon named ICM on my desktop. Let the googling start!

I already have Moshman's book, it's recommended in a link I found. As long as we keep in mind the differences to holdem and normal paced sngs, it can't hurt reading up as a ht player.

Last edited by plaaynde; 07-23-2014 at 10:02 AM.
07-23-2014 , 11:21 AM

This call or fold by icm?
07-23-2014 , 11:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gook999

This call or fold by icm?
ICM doesn't have that big of a role in this case compared to other situations. However, this depends on SB's tendencies. I'd prefer to fold as the blinds are rather low and the increase to SB's stack s not gigantic if we fold.
07-23-2014 , 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunolf
ICM doesn't have that big of a role in this case compared to other situations. However, this depends on SB's tendencies. I'd prefer to fold as the blinds are rather low and the increase to SB's stack s not gigantic if we fold.
Another question. If we call, its + or - EVcall by ICM? And situation Qd=8d + or -?
07-23-2014 , 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gook999

This call or fold by icm?
It's close, but I think I'd call. I hate the lack of low potential and an ace, but the KK and double suitedness compensates for that. Chip equity-wise you need 322/(362x2+12)=44% equity for breaking even.

 ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation[/URL] 600,000 trials (Randomized)
Hand Pot equity Scoops Wins HiTies HiWins Lo Ties Lo
qd kc 5c kd45.45% 196,851346,9531,70000
a54.55% 251,347251,3471,700279,2400

 ProPokerTools Omaha Hi/Lo Simulation[/URL] 600,000 trials (Randomized)
Hand Pot equity Scoops Wins HiTies HiWins Lo Ties Lo
qd kc 5c kd52.97% 241,688390,7543,41600
*47.03% 205,830205,8303,416244,0300

I don't see this as an ICM spot either.

Last edited by plaaynde; 07-23-2014 at 11:48 AM.
07-23-2014 , 11:42 AM
SB push 100% hands.
07-23-2014 , 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gook999
SB push 100% hands.
Clear call in that case.
07-23-2014 , 11:59 AM
But ICM me say: "NO, NO, NO its easy fold fkn fish!!!".
07-23-2014 , 12:02 PM
If we had (8d kc 5c kd) its easy call, at 60-100% SB push.
07-23-2014 , 02:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by biood1
then streity, show me 1 situation where ICM is off.
I appreciate that English may not be your first language (heh even with my surname may German isn't hot at all!) but I don't think you understand the point I was trying to make.

It's a basic maths formula. The formula is correct. I wasn't suggesting the calculation was incorrect at all.

What I was saying, and it may not have come across very well, was that the use and application of it is troublesome.

1. You cannot do an ICM calc at the table
2. The accuracy of it's calculation requires very specific knowledge of the range villain is pushing. Not easy versus randoms.
3. It cannot take into account blinds levels. e.g you have the same marginal \$cev decision at 15/30 and your M is say 15 versus the same situation at 75/150 and your M is less than 3. ICM would tell you fold in both instances. If I recall, MaCros made an interesting post on this a couple of years ago from a thread by Bakya.
4. It cannot take into account the speed of the blind levels. You have a marginal \$cev decision with a blind structure that goes at 10 minute blind levels as opposed to 2 minute blind levels. ICM would dictate you fold in both instances.

You see, what I am trying to say is that it's application in real time is difficult and that there are very significant variables that are omitted in it's calculation. It forms an important part of a lot decisions, but it isn't the definitive answer.
07-23-2014 , 04:29 PM
snapp call that hand

even when it is -EV spot for ICM i still would call
SB is your direct opponent because 1 of you guys will bubble
bigstek can keep pushing around so you will both lose a lot of chips
if you call now SB will adjust on you (sometimes) and will fold more hands First in
07-23-2014 , 05:12 PM
I'm back! Hoping not having to dwindle in the \$1.50s too much. Nice 16 consecutive losses in the \$3.50s. Builds character.

07-24-2014 , 04:18 AM
I will not be posting for some days, here's something to maybe chew on, just popped up in my mind. It's about chip ev and money ev in sit'n'gos. I might have been right in concentrating on chip ev when starting off. The reason is that positive chip ev is a minimum criterion for even starting to think about playing. Chip ev of course includes fold equity and dead money. Can you defend a single play with negative chip expectance? I think not, if you don't think you can win the metagame better then, but I wouldn't count on it in these games.

So, positive chip ev is necessary for playing. But then the ICM can be used for looking at which positive chip ev plays aren't money ev postitive, and can be avoided. Of course the big question is which those plays are in different settings.
07-24-2014 , 04:32 AM
you still didnt undertstand ICM.

Edit: Had a wrong read there, still its probably true ��
07-24-2014 , 04:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by biood1
Edit: Had a wrong read there, still its probably true ��
Most certainly, you are not talking to an ICM whiz here
07-24-2014 , 09:26 AM
what happened to premove ? didnt see him these days
07-24-2014 , 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by biood1
what happened to premove ? didnt see him these days
he probably just relocated with all the \$\$ he got from u

or just on holiday
07-24-2014 , 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by biood1
what happened to premove ? didnt see him these days
I think he's playing most of the Micro Millions tournaments. If I remember correctly, I saw his name on the leaderboard.
07-24-2014 , 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by plaaynde
I will not be posting for some days, here's something to maybe chew on, just popped up in my mind. It's about chip ev and money ev in sit'n'gos. I might have been right in concentrating on chip ev when starting off. The reason is that positive chip ev is a minimum criterion for even starting to think about playing. Chip ev of course includes fold equity and dead money. Can you defend a single play with negative chip expectance? I think not, if you don't think you can win the metagame better then, but I wouldn't count on it in these games.

So, positive chip ev is necessary for playing. But then the ICM can be used for looking at which positive chip ev plays aren't money ev postitive, and can be avoided. Of course the big question is which those plays are in different settings.
As far as working on ICM start off by focusing on call/fold situations rather than push/fold scenarios as the latter is going to be a lot harder to figure out especially against randoms which at your current stakes most of the players will be. Even at the higher stakes its tricky because a lot of times I expect players to fold based on stack sizes/ICM and they just dont.
07-24-2014 , 01:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by streityboy
I appreciate that English may not be your first language (heh even with my surname may German isn't hot at all!) but I don't think you understand the point I was trying to make.

It's a basic maths formula. The formula is correct. I wasn't suggesting the calculation was incorrect at all.

What I was saying, and it may not have come across very well, was that the use and application of it is troublesome.

1. You cannot do an ICM calc at the table
2. The accuracy of it's calculation requires very specific knowledge of the range villain is pushing. Not easy versus randoms.
3. It cannot take into account blinds levels. e.g you have the same marginal \$cev decision at 15/30 and your M is say 15 versus the same situation at 75/150 and your M is less than 3. ICM would tell you fold in both instances. If I recall, MaCros made an interesting post on this a couple of years ago from a thread by Bakya.
4. It cannot take into account the speed of the blind levels. You have a marginal \$cev decision with a blind structure that goes at 10 minute blind levels as opposed to 2 minute blind levels. ICM would dictate you fold in both instances.

You see, what I am trying to say is that it's application in real time is difficult and that there are very significant variables that are omitted in it's calculation. It forms an important part of a lot decisions, but it isn't the definitive answer.
Feel free to counter these at any point biood.

m