TPE Theory: Shortstack Play (Part 6)
[Total: 6 Average: 10/5]
You must sign in to vote
MORE IN THIS SERIES : Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5
TPE Theory: Shortstack Play (Part 6)
MORE IN THIS SERIES : Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5
SaraMara
Hello,
I have an ICM question concerning a certain spot on the final table.
Here you will find 2 calculations that I have made of the same situation with ChipEV and ICM to compare the difference – http://i60.tinypic.com/2cy5mjq.png
This is a final table I played with 4 people left. I shoved A3s vs a 50% open from BU which seamed like an exploitable shove to me. ( +1.27bb ChipEV ).
However after applying ICM my play becomes -0.06. In fact, even shoving hands like KQo and 55 is not showing profit.
I have been simulating many different icm spots and I just find some of them hard to believe. Recently I shoved AK with 16bb on a final table with 8 people. UTG raised 25% > co shoved 20bb ats+,aj+,22+,qjs+,kj+ > HR recommends folding AK on BB with 16bb. Now I’v calculated my equity vs co and converted all the extra chips that I would be winning into equity ( taking into account a call/fold from UTG ). In the end I had a roughly 10% equity advantage with AK yet according to ICM I should be folding.
I just find it hard to believe that ICM can diminish such equity advantages. Would love to try Future game simulation but unfortunately I don’t see it as an option for advanced hands calculations. I did however try it from push fold spots and did not see much of a difference.
Would appreciate to hear your take on this Matthew.