Home
(0 votes) 
February 5, 2015
Offline
Well, I have become a lurker at TPE over recent months. I have been super busy. Which is a great feeling, except that I feel that I have been super-busy getting absolutely nowhere in my life, and all the effort, time and money I have been throwing at the black hole which is my professional life would have been much better invested…hmmm? Playing poker and writing at TPE. Even base gambling would have been a better investment. At least I might have been disappointed, bitter, broke but entertained, instead of disappointed, bitter, broke and bored out of my ****ing mind!
Whatever…I’m still here, working on my game. I have been sticking with games in which I know I am profitable…and I am making a decent ROI now. I just paid for my car to get fixed from my BR. Who cares? So I have a question which arises often when working with HoldemResources Calculator…
I guess, compared to some of my other questions, it’s pretty straightforward:
I have been playing as a reg. in 18 man turbos. 4 places paid. So on 5 players left, we are in direct ICM territory. I expect HRC is on that. But how about when there are 7 players left? We are approaching the bubble, therefore surely the ICM-o-meter is rising here, and deforming standard Nash ranges? I guess the question I am asking is when should I switch the analysis from cEV to ICM when analysing a spot?I use ICM when there are 5 players or less left in a 4-paid structure, but if there are 7 guys left with 4 places paid should I still ask HRC to use ICM?
As the bubble approaches, I feel there should be a third option in the calculator…neither cEV nor ICM but a hybrid of the two, to reflect the fact that the ICM-o-meter is on the rise as the $$$ approaches. (I propose we name this new factor the Rice Factor 
).
Perhaps the calculator already understands all this though, and using ICM analysis when 7 players left/ 4 paid, for example, is factored in to the solution?
Of course, wider assumptions about larger field MTT’s can be drawn from analysing these small field ICM spots.
Just curious to know what to use exactly when. Many thanks!
February 5, 2015
Offline
Oh damn! I forgot! Matt (Ginger45) doesn’t like me writing long irrelevant introductions…so I will rewrite the question in the hope of getting an answer just playing Matt!
7 players left, 4 paid.
Using icmizer or HRC.
What equity model should I be using here?
Does an ICM calculator factor in the approaching bubble if I use ICM as the equity model?
There are large differences when I run the 7 left/4 paid scenario under cEV and ICM.
I looked online, but all they talk about is using ICM under super-high ICM spots, like 5 left/4 paid.
Surely there must be an equity model which factors in the approaching, but not imminent, bubble?
February 5, 2015
Offline
Gee, I might get depressed soon that nobody answers my threads any more. I won’t really, because having lived the life I have lived, I am utterly secure in myself these days and am therefore immune to any kind of negative, or in this case, non-positive vibe. It is simply not possible to offend me, (although I can get pissed off still). I simply don’t give a hoot matey, and if the worst comes to the worst I will simply bloody well write to myself in these forums, to hell with it all.
Perhaps this thread is considered ill-placed in the forums. I put it in the GTO section because it involves Nash ranges.
It’s a pretty straightforward question…it doesn’t need to be Matt nor Andrew who answers…I’ll take any response as a kindness!
February 5, 2015
Offline
Interesting…I finally found a discussion on this very topic on 2+2. It seems it is indeed a valid question, and provoked a lot of argument. Perhaps no-one answers my threads because they are too advanced and nobody has a clue what to say (joke).
It seems that approaching, and even at the bubble, in MTT’s > 180 mans, the general consensus seems to be to ignore ICM altogether and play standard cEV Nash ranges. ICM should be used only for the final table.
In fact, this is usually how I play, unless it’s a high stakes MTT and the min-cash is significant for me. The single figure % ROI you gain in a 180 man, for instance, is negligible.
Or is it though? Cashing to break even long term will have a significant effect on your profitability than just missing out on the $ and losing your buy-in. It really is complicated this it seems.
$EV calculations in multi table MTT’s are too complicated for ICM calculators to solve, but this does not mean that ICM should not be factored in.
So in fact my original example is perfect: a short, single table SNG, where the $ bubble represents a significant score in relation to the buy-in (33% +ROI).
It does seem that there needs to be a cEV/$EV hybrid equity model for these spots.
Excellent work once again Riceman in answering your own question, I feel you should be on some kind of retainer in these forums for your selfless work in furthering tournament poker knowledge.
TPE Pro
August 25, 2012
Offline
The Riceman said
It seems that approaching, and even at the bubble, in MTT’s > 180 mans, the general consensus seems to be to ignore ICM altogether and play standard cEV Nash ranges. ICM should be used only for the final table.
Riceman, I think posting on Christmas Day is your answer as to why nobody answered after your third post! Nobody is as dedicated to these forums as you, that’s for sure. 
If this quote above is how people still think on 2p2, then I’m glad to hear it. MTTs will still be super profitable for a while yet.
ICM is relevant throughout a tournament, it’s just that its effects are really hard to quantify until we get down to a FT. Players claiming ICM is irrelevant at the bubble are just creating reasons for themselves to punt off stacks.
Bubble ICM is hard to calculate (although HRC can do multi-table ICM if you know the approximate stack sizes at other tables – we shouldn’t ignore this function, it can be really useful), but it does exist. If you run a SNG situation where there are 4 paid and 7 left, the ICM effects observed can definitely be extrapolated to a bubble situation in a larger tournament.
It would be great if there were an ICM/cEV hybrid model, but the problem is that ICM itself is flawed as it is, since it doesn’t take into account skill edges, and since Future Game Simulation calculations are restricted to push-fold scenarios at this point. ICM is a blueprint rather than a set of rules, and the more understanding we gain about our skill edges and the utility of our chips moving forward, the more we can start to veer away from the ICM blueprint to make more profitable long-run decisions.
I think the best we can do in approaching the bubble is to bear in mind the basic principles of how to play according to ICM – it all revolves around how likely it is that players are going to bust soon. Most of the time this is related purely to stack sizes, but sometimes you’ll find a middle stack who’s playing way too aggro and has a good chance of punting it off before the short stacks bust – this is a big consideration.
If you treat MTT bubble spots as extrapolated versions of SNG bubble spots, you won’t go too far wrong. Be aggressive as the big stack, be precise in who you target as the middle stack, and be tight as the short stack when there are other short stacks still around. Beyond that, you’ll need to work on developing an accurate perspective of your skill edge versus certain players if you want to be able to make unusual +cEV plays that might be -$EV in the short run, but +$EV in the long run.
February 5, 2015
Offline
Ginger45 said:
“Players claiming ICM is irrelevant at the bubble are just creating reasons for themselves to punt off stacks.”
Well, a certain contributor on 2+2 agrees with you. He only contributed to the thread once, and briefly. In reply to a poster who argued ICM should be ignored at the bubble, he said something along the lines of: (sarcastic tone) “Well, in that case, why don’t we just ignore ICM at the final table also?”. Clearly, he thought ICM was very relevant at the bubble.
Now, the reason I mentally noted his response was because I recognised his 2+2 name…”Q”.
If I recall correctly, he is one Helmuth Melcher, author of HoldemResources Calculator. (Or, it could be Will Tipton…it’s one of the two for sure); my strong feeling is that it was Mr. Melcher. And if anyone understands ICM, it’s him.
Ginger45 said:
“If you run a SNG situation where there are 4 paid and 7 left, the ICM effects observed can definitely be extrapolated to a bubble situation in a larger tournament.”
I know my thread morphed in to all kinds of theory, but the basis of the thread was a literal question regarding correct usage of HRC, or any ICM calculator:
In a 4 paid/ 7 left scenario, am I supposed to use ICM or cEV as my equity model?
I think you have already basically answered this in your reply Matt, but could you just confirm this for me please? There is a very large difference in the solution to 7 left/4 paid under cEV than under ICM.
Many thanks! Happy new year to you.
February 5, 2015
Offline
Nope…I was wrong. Q is the author of ICMIZER (2).
TPE Pro
August 25, 2012
Offline
The Riceman said
Ginger45 said:“Players claiming ICM is irrelevant at the bubble are just creating reasons for themselves to punt off stacks.”
Well, a certain contributor on 2+2 agrees with you. He only contributed to the thread once, and briefly. In reply to a poster who argued ICM should be ignored at the bubble, he said something along the lines of: (sarcastic tone) “Well, in that case, why don’t we just ignore ICM at the final table also?”. Clearly, he thought ICM was very relevant at the bubble.
Now, the reason I mentally noted his response was because I recognised his 2+2 name…”Q”.
If I recall correctly, he is one Helmuth Melcher, author of HoldemResources Calculator. (Or, it could be Will Tipton…it’s one of the two for sure); my strong feeling is that it was Mr. Melcher. And if anyone understands ICM, it’s him.
Ginger45 said:
“If you run a SNG situation where there are 4 paid and 7 left, the ICM effects observed can definitely be extrapolated to a bubble situation in a larger tournament.”
I know my thread morphed in to all kinds of theory, but the basis of the thread was a literal question regarding correct usage of HRC, or any ICM calculator:
In a 4 paid/ 7 left scenario, am I supposed to use ICM or cEV as my equity model?
I think you have already basically answered this in your reply Matt, but could you just confirm this for me please? There is a very large difference in the solution to 7 left/4 paid under cEV than under ICM.
Many thanks! Happy new year to you.
Sorry Riceman, only just saw this!
I would use cEV as the model in that situation. You’re still some distance from the money, almost half the remaining field still has to bust before the bubble hits. There’s too much stuff left to happen before the bubble bursts.
Look at it as if there were 40 paid and 70 left. The bubble would be on your mind, but not a major concern. 400 paid with 700 left, same thing. But 4 paid with 5 left, 40 paid with 50 left, or 400 paid with 500 left, it starts to become more significant.
Most Users Ever Online: 2780
Currently Online:
14 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
bennymacca: 2616
Foucault: 2067
folding_aces_pre_yo: 1133
praetor: 1033
theginger45: 924
P-aire 146: 832
Turbulence: 768
The Riceman: 731
duggs: 591
florianm1: 588
Newest Members:
JLPicard
Jackarmi
WSOPstar2B
LuckyEva
jankyjon
Elpokero
Forum Stats:
Groups: 4
Forums: 24
Topics: 12705
Posts: 75003
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1063
Members: 11986
Moderators: 2
Admins: 5
Administrators: RonFezBuddy, Killingbird, Tournament Poker Edge Staff, ttwist, Carlos
Moderators: sitelock, sitelock_1
