More ICM, It's That Important teaches us how to use ICM to generate specific ranges.

If you have not yet read Day 25 and watched the video for Day 25 - take a few minutes now to do that and then come back here to discuss it:

More ICM, It's That Important

Worried about being able to memorize specific ranges? You don't have to be exact. This is the first of 5 rules we learn in the ebook.

All of us can reasonably discuss ICM at this point so let's tackle it with Collin and Katie in this thread.

The main point I recall from this instruction set was to "be aware" of all the legitimate hands that could be played with the ICM providing the data on how much to bet. If I don't know the texture of proper play (as in blackjack there is a basic strategy to minimize your losses) then you can't adjust this information to play against knowledgeable players.
I played numerous cash games today, at 888 the 2/5 cent SNAP game for "Hand of the Day" and Poker Stars 5/10 cent ZOOM for the Aces promotion that cost me $25 for the $1 scratch and win. These games sensitized me to how much more I needed to be aware of via the ICM.
Using the blackjack analogy, when the dealer is fast you've got to be adept at counting cards quickly and naturally. When calculating player ranges and bet sizes in fast moving cash games for the best mathematical play, this must be done with a bit of "Zen" also.

This course has given me a confidence boost to try swimming in more "sharkey" waters. I haven't played the $5 Spin games for a long while and I found them to be no big deal. During the hockey strike poker boom, people still had regular jobs they went to so anyone playing online poker during week day morning/afternoons was probably a serious player. With Covid this isn't the case because of the many people not able to work and students who must stay at home (and who may have a penchant for gambling) are a different mix.

I've been thinking a bit more about your emphasis on ICM and using PT4. Anything that can run as useful poker software must have a valid mathematical basis. I try to understand the theory that this software is built on to determine if I should believe what is presented or write it off as a non- realistic idealized theory (ie. 2 person game theory can only be stretched so far). In P vs NP, algorithms implementing LLL maybe won't get the best answer but close enough is all I'm looking for. Similarly, if I understand the tools that you have showcased here well enough, perhaps I can "roll-my-own" script in a spreadsheet program ..? How much of your success (you are both very successful..in more ways than one!) is or has been tied to your use of poker software? As professionals, will your win rate still be the same on Party Poker which doesn't allow trackers?

Final note, a couple of years ago I finished 301st out of a field of about 4500 in the Sunday Million flying by the seat of my pants. Ten years ago, I finished 80th in the Party Poker Sunday game (after having been disconnected from the game) and had other similar finishes under different screen names, again by the seat of my pants, but I never made the final table. With the help of this course, I would like to improve my prior performances in a very measured and transparent way. Without your having played against me (knowingly anyways), what would be a realistic forecast of a final year end "net' bankroll for me and how many hours total (study and playing poker) would be required to correlate with that value at year end? [I hope you noticed my diligence in assimilating and providing feedback in my attempts to apply what has been shown here.]

I once took a SNG course by Greg Jones and he gave us a magic range for resteals of AQ, 88. He said we could go a few steps down against loose players and a few steps up against tighter players.

So facing a raise from tight player, then AQs 99 and against a loose player, Aj, 66.

The magic range you provide is a lot looser and I was wandering why this is - is it due to the game changing, antes, or was the range Greg provided not optimal?

I know he was a student of yours and would love to hear your thoughts on using the AQ 88 magic range in today’s 9 man turbo sng (micros)

Also, do you have any advice or tips on how to create ranges in Icmizer for different stack sizes?

I also have your book, sit snd go strategy. Is it still relevant for today’s games?

Hope you don’t mind the questions

Thanks in advance!

I’m really enjoying the course..

Great question Pip. Greg is an IRL friend of mine and excellent teacher, I helped him some with that book and forgot that he used the magic range to refer to 88+ AQ+ in it, so I'm very glad you pointed that out!

In today's games, that would generally be too-tight a resteal range except in certain spots like a TAG player opening in early position. (I don't mean to criticize Greg at all for this -- my original SNG book has a lot of advice that's also much too tight for today's games.)

So anyway, while it's very situation-dependent, the 22/A2s/JTs range is great for a lot of spots now.

My book is still very relevant in terms of fundamentals but gives too-tight advice (like I mentioned above) in a lot of spots, just because the specific way the game plays has evolved. Our course here updates it for the modern games.

ICMizer allows you to modify the stacks any way you like, so I recommend just playing around with making the effective stack higher or lower and seeing how that modifies the output.

Great questions and thanks for the nice words!

Originally Posted by Collin Moshman

Great question Pip. Greg is an IRL friend of mine and excellent teacher, I helped him some with that book and forgot that he used the magic range to refer to 88+ AQ+ in it, so I'm very glad you pointed that out!

In today's games, that would generally be too-tight a resteal range except in certain spots like a TAG player opening in early position. (I don't mean to criticize Greg at all for this -- my original SNG book has a lot of advice that's also much too tight for today's games.)

So anyway, while it's very situation-dependent, the 22/A2s/JTs range is great for a lot of spots now.

My book is still very relevant in terms of fundamentals but gives too-tight advice (like I mentioned above) in a lot of spots, just because the specific way the game plays has evolved. Our course here updates it for the modern games.

ICMizer allows you to modify the stacks any way you like, so I recommend just playing around with making the effective stack higher or lower and seeing how that modifies the output.

Great questions and thanks for the nice words!

Thanks Collin

[QUOTE=pip77;5587388]Thanks Collin..

Does Greg still play? He is a great teacher and the course he did was very good..

I remember is videos on DTB

QUOTE]

Originally Posted by pip77

I once took a SNG course by Greg Jones and he gave us a magic range for resteals of AQ, 88. He said we could go a few steps down against loose players and a few steps up against tighter players.

So facing a raise from tight player, then AQs 99 and against a loose player, Aj, 66.

The magic range you provide is a lot looser and I was wandering why this is - is it due to the game changing, antes, or was the range Greg provided not optimal?

I know he was a student of yours and would love to hear your thoughts on using the AQ 88 magic range in today’s 9 man turbo sng (micros)

Also, do you have any advice or tips on how to create ranges in Icmizer for different stack sizes?

I also have your book, sit snd go strategy. Is it still relevant for today’s games?

Hope you don’t mind the questions

Thanks in advance!

I’m really enjoying the course..

Greg coached me for awhile back in the day - loved him!

Greg is a great teacher for sure! Pip I believe he still plays, but I think his main hobby now though is jiu-jitsu. I see him posting a lot of cool updates about his martial arts.

This video is getting a lot of views in YouTube - anxious for members to get this far and join in on the discussion!

OMG! My head is bursting with all the info. At my age it gets more and more difficult to remember all the different things - and ICM for some reason blows my mind - always has.

Trying to remember all the different stack sizes when to shove, when not to, effective stack sizes, pot odds, outs/odds, different ranges for different situations - aaargh!

I think I'm getting there and it is slowly sinking in, but a lot of the time it is more like instinctive rather than actual math, if you understand what I'm trying to say. As I study, my decisions are changing, but not always aware of #of BB ante vs no ante, etc on a conscious level, but it's like there is something there on an unconscious level that changes my decision process. I know I definitely bluff and semi-bluff more than I used to (unless I'm surrounded by maniacs as is actually often the case) and I have caught more bluffs than I used to also. My playing range is changing and I am far more positionally aware (is that a word?).

So although it feels like the top of my head is about to explode, I do know something is changing - so I thank you for that (but not so much for the headache ).

Cheers

Originally Posted by Debi

This video is getting a lot of views in YouTube - anxious for members to get this far and join in on the discussion!

Very glad to hear as this is a great topic to learn!

Originally Posted by cferdi

OMG! My head is bursting with all the info. At my age it gets more and more difficult to remember all the different things - and ICM for some reason blows my mind - always has.

Trying to remember all the different stack sizes when to shove, when not to, effective stack sizes, pot odds, outs/odds, different ranges for different situations - aaargh!

I think I'm getting there and it is slowly sinking in, but a lot of the time it is more like instinctive rather than actual math, if you understand what I'm trying to say. As I study, my decisions are changing, but not always aware of #of BB ante vs no ante, etc on a conscious level, but it's like there is something there on an unconscious level that changes my decision process. I know I definitely bluff and semi-bluff more than I used to (unless I'm surrounded by maniacs as is actually often the case) and I have caught more bluffs than I used to also. My playing range is changing and I am far more positionally aware (is that a word?).

So although it feels like the top of my head is about to explode, I do know something is changing - so I thank you for that (but not so much for the headache ).

Cheers

Haha don't worry Cferdi, it will become second-nature with time and practice

Originally Posted by Collin Moshman

Haha don't worry Cferdi, it will become second-nature with time and practice

Yes, I think it kind of is, veeeeery slowly, lol - thanks again

ICM-ize!

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

Is using this software strictly for studying purposes, I mean, you dont have time to use it while playing?

Very important class, ty.
I will try these softwares.
Do you know if has a software or an easy way to calculate an ICM at progressive KO tourneys - ask.
For example, at a $3,3 PKO tourney, a villain went all in with 4k stack and with a bounty of $4,5 at his head. This overy buy in value over his/her head can increase our ICM calling chances or just not change anything - ask.

Originally Posted by belizebum

Is using this software strictly for studying purposes, I mean, you dont have time to use it while playing?

Great question. Yes and in fact it's against most site TOS (rules) to use while playing. Stars will warn you for doing it.

Originally Posted by CadoARAJ

Very important class, ty.
I will try these softwares.
Do you know if has a software or an easy way to calculate an ICM at progressive KO tourneys - ask.
For example, at a $3,3 PKO tourney, a villain went all in with 4k stack and with a bounty of $4,5 at his head. This overy buy in value over his/her head can increase our ICM calling chances or just not change anything - ask.

Yes, ICMizer can handle these calculations. You can have it tell you the answer to these questions

Originally Posted by Collin Moshman

Great question. Yes and in fact it's against most site TOS (rules) to use while playing. Stars will warn you for doing it.




Yes, ICMizer can handle these calculations. You can have it tell you the answer to these questions

Ty for your 3 straight answers and congrats for you boyh excellence course. Pretty usual.

thank you for the video. ICM makes my brain hurt but this is very useful info

Finished Day #25.

The chapter cleared some questions I always had about the application of ICM during the push/fold stage.

It lays out some fundamentls of the push/fold strategy very well. When it comes to the 15bb shove first in, I'm probably going to muck the very bottom of the "Magic Range" from EP, hands like 44-22, J10s, etc.

Important thing is the re-steal stuff from the blinds when facing late position steals too.

Another thing I want to mention is that you need to put all those concepts into action by playing a big amount of tourneys and then study the results using your HUD software. For people that don't use such kind of softwares (like me), the bitter truth is that it slows our progress significantly.

It's a part of the game that HUDs have their usefulness (although I'm super pro about banning HUD during online play, and use them only for study purposes).

A much-needed break for the weekend and then back on Monday with the first day of the last week of this course.

ICM is still a foggy concept for me, but instinct kicks in and balances things out. In the J9 on the BB hand, does ICMizer incorporate fold equity?

Originally Posted by Luvart

Finished Day #25.

The chapter cleared some questions I always had about the application of ICM during the push/fold stage.

It lays out some fundamentls of the push/fold strategy very well. When it comes to the 15bb shove first in, I'm probably going to muck the very bottom of the "Magic Range" from EP, hands like 44-22, J10s, etc.

Important thing is the re-steal stuff from the blinds when facing late position steals too.

Another thing I want to mention is that you need to put all those concepts into action by playing a big amount of tourneys and then study the results using your HUD software. For people that don't use such kind of softwares (like me), the bitter truth is that it slows our progress significantly.

It's a part of the game that HUDs have their usefulness (although I'm super pro about banning HUD during online play, and use them only for study purposes).

A much-needed break for the weekend and then back on Monday with the first day of the last week of this course.

Great progress Luvart, and good luck with the final week of the course!

Originally Posted by PsychoVas

ICM is still a foggy concept for me, but instinct kicks in and balances things out. In the J9 on the BB hand, does ICMizer incorporate fold equity?

Yes, in calculating the initial shover's range it takes fold equity into the account. And generally speaking, if it's possible for an opponent to fold, ICMizer makes a good assessment of the fold equity to do its calculations.

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

Hello CCers,

It is great to get another useful tool with which to play. The idea of those ranges are really interesting and will take some getting used to. The Mathematics of poker is undeniable.

I have a phrase - big stack sick joke! It hurts when they have that luxury of calling with the wide ranges since they are not in danger of busting out and very often win the pot by crushing premium hands.

Such is life, it is still exciting when things work out. It washes out all the memories of bad beats and sick jokes!

Originally Posted by Collin Moshman

ICMizer allows you to modify the stacks any way you like, so I recommend just playing around with making the effective stack higher or lower and seeing how that modifies the output.

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?

Originally Posted by freddydr87

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

Originally Posted by Polytarp

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

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

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?

Originally Posted by 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?

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!

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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!

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!

Originally Posted by 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!

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

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by Phoenix Wright

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.

Originally Posted by Collin Moshman

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.

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

Originally Posted by 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

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

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...

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?

Originally Posted by Phyrrura

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

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 :P

Originally Posted by 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 :P

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

Originally Posted by Collin Moshman

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

Cardschatreply.jpg

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

Originally Posted by Daddysprincess99

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%.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by fundiver199

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.

Originally Posted by fundiver199

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.