aliengenius
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
huh? Busting out and making less money is exactly what you are avoiding using the theory, which is neither obscure, nor that difficult to understand.
Read Skop's post re chip value change.
In the example given, sure-- it's taken to the extreme to illustrate the point. But up our chip stack a bit relative to our opponents', make only two instead of three all in, and give us QQ instead, and you can see how it gets a bit more complicated. The point is, that in tournaments, especially when everyone gets down to a low M or stack size relative to the blinds, and play becomes entirely preflop shove/call decisions, understanding ICM math is what separates the great sng players from the wannabes. Shrug it off if you want, but the situation isn't always common sense, and is often even counter-intuitive.
ChuckTs
Legend
Silver Level
What AG said above.
Giving us an 80,000-chip stack instead, or maybe QQ with only two opponents all in doesn't make it common sense to fold now, does it?
This is where we should be using ICM to figure out what the best course of action is.
Last edited:
ChuckTs
Legend
Silver Level
a) they're probably better 'natural' players than all of us put together. They're viciously good at math, have very good observational abilities, have excellent memory and are very, very disciplined.
b) they probably play more in a month than we have in our whole poker 'careers'. More hands = more experience = increased poker skills and abilities.
c) they read and absorb everything related to poker out there. Not because they think every single theory is 'right' and leads to automatic winnings, but because knowledge is power. The more you know, the easier you can decide on the best course of action during a hand.
jaymfc
R.I.P DJ & Buck
Loyaler
I'm gonna read more about the ICM theory , I understand the example AG gave .
also it burns me up in tourneys that pay top 30 people the same amount , on the bubble , one all-in , three callers , then everyone fights to win the chips (pot) instead of gettin the all-in out. this has nothing to do with the ICM theory , but it shows most people don't think about the cash verses just getting more chips and winning that pot.
in AGs example I would have folded the aces , knowing that I was about to be in fourth place , only to have the board create a tie ,putting no one out and then having to go all-in the next hand with ace rag.
also it burns me up in tourneys that pay top 30 people the same amount , on the bubble , one all-in , three callers , then everyone fights to win the chips (pot) instead of gettin the all-in out. this has nothing to do with the ICM theory , but it shows most people don't think about the cash verses just getting more chips and winning that pot.
in AGs example I would have folded the aces , knowing that I was about to be in fourth place , only to have the board create a tie ,putting no one out and then having to go all-in the next hand with ace rag.
Q
quads
Rock Star
Silver Level
I think the point of my intentions with this thread is taking on a new direction. So I’m going to try and rephrase it.
I particularly choose to pick on the article written by Jenifear, about the ICM theory.
Not that the article has no foundation of fact. Especially with the AA example Aleingenius pointed out above. If the big stack folded in this case and the other three went all-in, and then it was on me. I would muck my cards without even looking at them. The fact that I find this information obvious might be a bit sarcastic. (or showing my age)
Chuck, I totally understand things can get much more complicated with different circumstances. But when talking about multi-million dollar purses or a $5.00 SNG on a computer with donk-aholics, how important is the ICM factor. I know, I know, the amount technically is irrelevant. But realistically, different circumstances will always call for different actions. No one plays poker by the book of long term percentage outcomes, all the time.
Anyhow, what I started this post trying to get too was about all the different people that are writing about all these endless systems. Like I said earlier I read most everything. No doubt books have improved my game. People will take what they want from them, and I understand that education doesn’t just appear. Being a veteran player, I wasn’t subject to such an invasion of theories, being written by everyone that knows what their talking about, and everyone that thinks they know what their talking about. A newbie today could end up with a terrible game, or take allot longer to get competitive, getting all screwed up with all these different suggestions being written by hundreds of people. Now throw in all the software crap available today, these kids don’t even have to think anymore online, and won’t have a chance live. Doyle wasn’t reading about the ICM theory I’m sure. Just think this flooding of information can in many cases cause more harm then good.
I particularly choose to pick on the article written by Jenifear, about the ICM theory.
Not that the article has no foundation of fact. Especially with the AA example Aleingenius pointed out above. If the big stack folded in this case and the other three went all-in, and then it was on me. I would muck my cards without even looking at them. The fact that I find this information obvious might be a bit sarcastic. (or showing my age)
Chuck, I totally understand things can get much more complicated with different circumstances. But when talking about multi-million dollar purses or a $5.00 SNG on a computer with donk-aholics, how important is the ICM factor. I know, I know, the amount technically is irrelevant. But realistically, different circumstances will always call for different actions. No one plays poker by the book of long term percentage outcomes, all the time.
Anyhow, what I started this post trying to get too was about all the different people that are writing about all these endless systems. Like I said earlier I read most everything. No doubt books have improved my game. People will take what they want from them, and I understand that education doesn’t just appear. Being a veteran player, I wasn’t subject to such an invasion of theories, being written by everyone that knows what their talking about, and everyone that thinks they know what their talking about. A newbie today could end up with a terrible game, or take allot longer to get competitive, getting all screwed up with all these different suggestions being written by hundreds of people. Now throw in all the software crap available today, these kids don’t even have to think anymore online, and won’t have a chance live. Doyle wasn’t reading about the ICM theory I’m sure. Just think this flooding of information can in many cases cause more harm then good.
ChuckTs
Legend
Silver Level
You're right. The stakes don't matter. Winning poker is winning poker.
Right again, and this is why those who do play the long-term winning percentages win.
tbh I'm still not exactly sure what your OP was meant to be focused on, be it from your lack of clarity or my lack of interpretation, and I also feel like it's somehow getting off track...
aliengenius
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Actually, with the wealth of information out there, a newbie can get very good very quickly-- i.e., the opposite of "all screwed up with all these different suggestions."
I really don't see how you can complain about too much information, unless it's to decry how much tougher it's making the competition.
Homey Jeromey
Rock Star
Silver Level
I play mostly s-n-g small stakes and have began to climb up in buyin amounts and play less and less beginner tourneys. So I need to know this more in detail. As it seems I have already began to come to my own conclusions that parallel this theroy. Baby steps!!!