More ICM - It's That Important! (Day 25 Course Discussion)

[Collin Moshman]

I loved the magical rangue is easy to remember and in fact is a very strong rangue when we are runnng low.

Thanks Freddy, I agree that it's a very useful range

Can you provide a rationale for using either the MH algorithm or the Ben Roberts model?
In Roberts' 2011 paper he also mentioned Monte Carlo simulation and provided a link to T. Ferguson's paper (..now I know where Chris got his smarts from!).

I'm grappling with applying the right concepts to these games and am questioning the validity of certain approaches. Pauli's quote.."it's not even wrong" gives me pause to think about what I'm looking at and to understand it to the best of my ability. If I'm going to be making decisions balancing tens of thousands of $ (presently I'm balancing tens of cents) when ITM I would like to justify my reasons for doing what I did instead of saying..shucks (or other expletive), I dunno what happened..my chips were there then poooof!..all gone!

As a final note, is FGS or some accelerated version of it the way to go?

I haven't heard of either the MH or Ben Roberts models. FGS is definitely the best to use when stacks are short and you don't want to get blinded out. Chips going poooof is a good description of how a lot of tournies will inevitably go

 

[Debi]

If you struggle with ICM I recommend reviewing both of these lessons more than once.

 

[johnnylawford]

Do any of the 5 range rules need to be adjusted for pay jumps? I'm thinking particularly in satellites rules like #3 might not always be appropriate when you're on a bubble. For instance if you have 2bb left in a hyper-turbo satellite on the cash bubble and there are 3 stacks with less than a blind would you still shove/call any 2?

 

[Collin Moshman]

Do any of the 5 range rules need to be adjusted for pay jumps? I'm thinking particularly in satellites rules like #3 might not always be appropriate when you're on a bubble. For instance if you have 2bb left in a hyper-turbo satellite on the cash bubble and there are 3 stacks with less than a blind would you still shove/call any 2?

Absolutely, yes. These rules sometimes need significant modification based on ICM. If you're on the stone bubble of a satellite, it might be a huge mistake to call with AK in the big blind off a 3bb stack if there are multiple stacks left with around 0.5 bb.

Thanks for pointing this out!

 

[deyvsonflp]

Even though this is the range of shove and call ....

I notice that the field is much tighter in the range of call and shove than this table.

 

[Katie Dozier]

Even though this is the range of shove and call ....

I notice that the field is much tighter in the range of call and shove than this table.

I totally agree that on average players both call and shove way tighter than is profitable in ICM intensive scenarios! That's part of why it's a funny little pet peeve of mine in poker when tournament pros belittle shove/fold poker as though it's trivial. In my experience, some of the players that make fun of it the most are actually the worst at it!

 

[zam220]

This is my weakness in the game! I play according to my feelings, and I need to strengthen ICM to strengthen my game! But this is so lazy to do, you need to start working with programs!

 

[Katie Dozier]

This is my weakness in the game! I play according to my feelings, and I need to strengthen ICM to strengthen my game! But this is so lazy to do, you need to start working with programs!

Using software in order to increase our understanding of ICM is incredibly important for us tournament players! There is certainly a learning curve at first; but once you get the hang of it I think they're quite fun. When I make an unusual, ICM-based play in a tournament, I often get excited thinking about plugging the spot in to software once I've finished playing in order to check that my in-game analysis was indeed spot on

 

[Phoenix Wright]

ICM-ize!

Okay, seriously though: lots of information here; software is surely a powerful tool.

I just quoted my earlier post because I still find it funny looking back at my old posts

The reason I am posting in this thread again is because I have learned a lot in the months after this 30 Day course and its freeroll (which I ended up winning and added to my "cardschat signature" about a month later since this achievement meant a lot to me). In fact, I don't think I've ever slowed down my poker learning since then; if anything, I'm even more motivated to learn and improve now!

With the fresh perspective of a little experience now, I am viewing some of this 30 Day Course content slightly differently now (I still love it, but there is no doubt that I am a bit more inquisitive into "why these principles work" than simple accepting "they work."

In doing so, a question recently came into my mind. Why isn't AKo included in the "magic range" for shoving all-in preflop, when short-stacked? This "magic range" I am referring to includes: all suited aces, all suited broadways and all pocket pairs. This means that AKs is in that range, but AKo is not.

Naturally, AK (suited or not) has great potential pre-flop. When they do hit, we even have top pair. Beginner to pro seems to realize that AK is a nice starting hand to be dealt. In Phil Hellmuth's book, "Play Poker Like The Pros", He even considers AK to be the 4th "best hand in poker" (AA, KK, QQ, AK, JJ in that order were his "Top 5").

I'd like to hear from anyone more experienced than I, although Collin or Katie would be ideal. Why is AKo not in this "magic range" for pre-flop shoves when short-stacked?

Here is my current guess, but I am not certain if this is the real reason:

AK can win some big pots, but it can also lose some big pots too; this is especially true for beginners overplaying AK preflop and even more often: overplaying AK when it misses the flop. My guess is that since AK loses a lot of value on missed flops, this hand is not ideal for shoving pre-flop when short-stacked. Even if you get one caller and are lucky enough to double up, then the pot wasn't that huge (since you were short-stacked). AKo is still a solid hand, but from a hand combination perspective, there are only four AKs possibilities, yet there are 12 AKo possibilities and this would loosen the "magic range" a little bit (hence making it slightly less effective when shoving a strong "value range"). Is this assessment correct?

 

[Collin Moshman]

I just quoted my earlier post because I still find it funny looking back at my old posts

The reason I am posting in this thread again is because I have learned a lot in the months after this 30 Day course and its freeroll (which I ended up winning and added to my "cardschat signature" about a month later since this achievement meant a lot to me). In fact, I don't think I've ever slowed down my poker learning since then; if anything, I'm even more motivated to learn and improve now!

With the fresh perspective of a little experience now, I am viewing some of this 30 Day Course content slightly differently now (I still love it, but there is no doubt that I am a bit more inquisitive into "why these principles work" than simple accepting "they work."

In doing so, a question recently came into my mind. Why isn't AKo included in the "magic range" for shoving all-in preflop, when short-stacked? This "magic range" I am referring to includes: all suited aces, all suited broadways and all pocket pairs. This means that AKs is in that range, but AKo is not.

Naturally, AK (suited or not) has great potential pre-flop. When they do hit, we even have top pair. Beginner to pro seems to realize that AK is a nice starting hand to be dealt. In Phil Hellmuth's book, "Play Poker Like The Pros", He even considers AK to be the 4th "best hand in poker" (AA, KK, QQ, AK, JJ in that order were his "Top 5").

I'd like to hear from anyone more experienced than I, although Collin or Katie would be ideal. Why is AKo not in this "magic range" for pre-flop shoves when short-stacked?

Here is my current guess, but I am not certain if this is the real reason:

AK can win some big pots, but it can also lose some big pots too; this is especially true for beginners overplaying AK preflop and even more often: overplaying AK when it misses the flop. My guess is that since AK loses a lot of value on missed flops, this hand is not ideal for shoving pre-flop when short-stacked. Even if you get one caller and are lucky enough to double up, then the pot wasn't that huge (since you were short-stacked). AKo is still a solid hand, but from a hand combination perspective, there are only four AKs possibilities, yet there are 12 AKo possibilities and this would loosen the "magic range" a little bit (hence making it slightly less effective when shoving a strong "value range"). Is this assessment correct?

Great question Phoenix. I'm sorry we didn't talk about this in the course; we will definitely include it in a next edition!

The reason is because the magic range is meant to be hands that have surprising power. 22, JTs, and A3s all do very well jamming over late position raises even though they're not monster hands.

Whereas AK is considered to be a monster. You should definitely still play it in all spots you would play the magic range, and many more. Typically if the magic range framework applies, you would also include at least AQo and AJo too.

Thanks very much for clarifying this point.

 

[Phoenix Wright]

Great question Phoenix. I'm sorry we didn't talk about this in the course; we will definitely include it in a next edition!

The reason is because the magic range is meant to be hands that have surprising power. 22, JTs, and A3s all do very well jamming over late position raises even though they're not monster hands.

Whereas AK is considered to be a monster. You should definitely still play it in all spots you would play the magic range, and many more. Typically if the magic range framework applies, you would also include at least AQo and AJo too.

Thanks very much for clarifying this point.

Glad to be of a help to a future edition

Also, thank you for the prompt reply in an old thread.

 

[Good Man]

Today you have discussed some of the most important scenarios in which ICM is essential, but there are many other such situations. The General conclusion of the material is that profitable tournament poker requires a clear understanding of how ICM affects the ranges we play. I will try to learn more about ICM situations using special software, since understanding the ICM factor is a prerequisite for winning tournaments.




Life is a game , play beautiful

 

[Katie Dozier]

Today you have discussed some of the most important scenarios in which ICM is essential, but there are many other such situations. The General conclusion of the material is that profitable tournament poker requires a clear understanding of how ICM affects the ranges we play. I will try to learn more about ICM situations using special software, since understanding the ICM factor is a prerequisite for winning tournaments.




Life is a game , play beautiful

Excellent understanding of the material, Good Man! Sounds like you’re making awesome progress through the course

 

[carmenzu]

Very Important:
On a more serious note, ICM tells us exactly what ranges we can move all-in with pre-flop in many different situations. In the last ICM section on Day 14, we looked at important general results from the model such as chips declining in value. In today’s section, we’re going to look at how to use ICM to generate specific ranges.
The Magic Range: All Suited Aces, Suited Broadways, and Pocket Pairs.

This extends the concept of the ICM...

 

[Phyrrura]

I was already a little bit convinced

Alright Katie and Collin, now I believe you the valor of adding this another tool in my game, and it'is huge!

Since I started using HUD and IMC to study my sets my perception of the game changed completely, those who didn't gave it a chance yet is really missing on something crucial!
Remember: you're villains you'll be using these advantage against you, so why would you want to be missing this great toll that is the Math for improving your game?

 

[Collin Moshman]

Alright Katie and Collin, now I believe you the valor of adding this another tool in my game, and it'is huge!

Since I started using HUD and IMC to study my sets my perception of the game changed completely, those who didn't gave it a chance yet is really missing on something crucial!
Remember: you're villains you'll be using these advantage against you, so why would you want to be missing this great toll that is the Math for improving your game?

Yes that is true: Opponents can always use these tools and ideas against you, so don't let them get an edge that way!

Thanks for the nice words and we're glad you're putting the concepts to good use

 

[Daddysprincess99]

Hi Collin and Katie. I'm trying out the Holdem Resources Nash ICM Calculator and can't figure out what the third OC indented column stands for! This is probably a silly question

 

[Collin Moshman]

Hi Collin and Katie. I'm trying out the Holdem Resources Nash ICM Calculator and can't figure out what the third OC indented column stands for! This is probably a silly question

No problem! Would you mind putting in a screenshot of where you're talking about? We'd be happy to take a look.

 

[Daddysprincess99]

No problem! Would you mind putting in a screenshot of where you're talking about? We'd be happy to take a look.

Here the BB is listed under OC for 0.9% with KK+

 

[Collin Moshman]

View attachment 284704

Here the BB is listed under OC for 0.9% with KK+

OK this screenshot is perfect. So it would mean:

Button shoves 21%

If Button Shoves First, then SB Shoves 7.2%

If Button shoves first, then SB shoves second, then BB now shoves KK+

Whereas if Button Shoves and SB folds, then BB jams 15.1%.

 

[birdman666]

Range rule # 3 states that we should call any shove in the big blind when the stacks are 3BB or less (4BB with antes). It highlights that it should be done whether the opponent is tight or loose, because of the good odds to call. Fine in a tournament game.
But not in a cash game. In cash games ICM does not apply. Lets suppose a cash game where the opponent is very tight. If we have 23o should we call a shove from him? Of course not, we will lose the extra amount we call most of the times with our 23o. Its better to give up just the mandatory BB and not risk anything more.
In a tournament I would play differently because of ICM. In this case winning extra chips is crucial to avoid being blinded out. It is better to call here and double up ate least more 2BB than to wait for the next hand and double up one less BB.

 

[birdman666]

Another thing I could not be sure. Do we count such effective stack before or after posting the big blind? If we have 4BB, we post 1BB, we remaing with 3BB, so I believe this is the effective stack.

 

[fundiver199]

Range rule # 3 states that we should call any shove in the big blind when the stacks are 3BB or less (4BB with antes). It highlights that it should be done whether the opponent is tight or loose, because of the good odds to call. Fine in a tournament game.
But not in a cash game. In cash games ICM does not apply. Lets suppose a cash game where the opponent is very tight. If we have 23o should we call a shove from him? Of course not, we will lose the extra amount we call most of the times with our 23o. Its better to give up just the mandatory BB and not risk anything more.
In a tournament I would play differently because of ICM. In this case winning extra chips is crucial to avoid being blinded out. It is better to call here and double up ate least more 2BB than to wait for the next hand and double up one less BB.

Actually its the other way around. In a tournament chips won are always worth less than chips lost, which is often referred to as ICM, and therefore calling ranges are tighter in tournaments than cash games. Nobody should really be sitting with a 3BB stack in a cash game. But if for whatever reason it happen, and this player move all in, it will be correct to call his jam with any two cards closing the action, because you are getting good enough pot odds to do so. You are paying 2BB to win a pot of 6,5BB, which mean you only need 30% equity against his range, and basically any hand will typically have that.

 

[Katie Dozier]

Actually its the other way around. In a tournament chips won are always worth less than chips lost, which is often referred to as ICM, and therefore calling ranges are tighter in tournaments than cash games. Nobody should really be sitting with a 3BB stack in a cash game. But if for whatever reason it happen, and this player move all in, it will be correct to call his jam with any two cards closing the action, because you are getting good enough pot odds to do so. You are paying 2BB to win a pot of 6,5BB, which mean you only need 30% equity against his range, and basically any hand will typically have that.

Fundiver hit the nail on the head here with this answer. We’re getting the odds to call which isn’t alway the most fun with 32o but is still correct regardless of if it’s a cash game or tournament.

 

[birdman666]

Actually its the other way around. In a tournament chips won are always worth less than chips lost, which is often referred to as ICM, and therefore calling ranges are tighter in tournaments than cash games. Nobody should really be sitting with a 3BB stack in a cash game. But if for whatever reason it happen, and this player move all in, it will be correct to call his jam with any two cards closing the action, because you are getting good enough pot odds to do so. You are paying 2BB to win a pot of 6,5BB, which mean you only need 30% equity against his range, and basically any hand will typically have that.

Thanks for the answer. Thats true, you are right. I didn't expect 23o to have 30% equity against most strong hands, but yeah I did the computations and its still ahead of 1:3. It's counterintuitive this situation though.
I've seen many players folding raises short stacked in cash games. Then probably they are playing wrong.