I think in poker the "correct" decision is the one that makes you the most money. From that, I also think a lot of people have an incorrect understanding of what the basic concept/thought behind ICM is.
There isn't 2 ways of playing (going for the win or making ICM decisions) that make the most money. ICM exists because the decisions one makes when following it makes more money than when not (long term, obviously). "Playing for the win" sounds sexy and aggressive as we are playing for the big top prize that seems harder to achieve when making tight ICM folds etc. However, from my understanding of it, that still costs us money long term. Thus playing with ICM in mind/with knowledge of it seems correct.
Disclaimer - bit of a fish and very happy to be proved wrong ^
this is by far the best answer imo.
Icm is a model for finding the most profitable play. Ignoring it and "playing for the win" is just an excuse for not playing optimally.
Thanks for the reply Andy. I suppose the question is, is it ALWAYS just about the money?
Would you rather have a record of two WSOP comp runner ups for say £1,100.000 net profit, or one win and £1,050,000 net profit?
I complete agree with your "logic" obs, but is it always just about logic and money, what about passion and achievement?
Surely to answer the question honestly , it's all about the relativity of how much money you have/want/need...
At those sorts of sums people are already made for life.... so going for the glory- coming 2nd or indeed a FT £ and still being paid a good sum- means that the win and the associated fame/glory/respect/etc is why you play for?
Perspective..me in your bubble spot..I need the cash atm, even a min cash so hang around, hope to min cash then, subject to stack sizes push on hard!
Completely get why you may want to secure the min cash first. Trouble is it can cause you to be too conservative and not play ICM optimal in an "over-cautious" way, and get "run over" by the more aggressive guys that are exploiting the shorter stacks on the bubble.
Totally understand why you may want to not risk bubbling though.
Then again? When have I ever been " over-cautious"? FFS!
I think in poker the "correct" decision is the one that makes you the most money. From that, I also think a lot of people have an incorrect understanding of what the basic concept/thought behind ICM is.
There isn't 2 ways of playing (going for the win or making ICM decisions) that make the most money. ICM exists because the decisions one makes when following it makes more money than when not (long term, obviously). "Playing for the win" sounds sexy and aggressive as we are playing for the big top prize that seems harder to achieve when making tight ICM folds etc. However, from my understanding of it, that still costs us money long term. Thus playing with ICM in mind/with knowledge of it seems correct.
Disclaimer - bit of a fish and very happy to be proved wrong ^
this is by far the best answer imo.
Icm is a model for finding the most profitable play. Ignoring it and "playing for the win" is just an excuse for not playing optimally.
Thanks for the reply Andy. I suppose the question is, is it ALWAYS just about the money?
Would you rather have a record of two WSOP comp runner ups for say £1,100.000 net profit, or one win and £1,050,000 net profit?
I complete agree with your "logic" obs, but is it always just about logic and money, what about passion and achievement?
Surely to answer the question honestly , it's all about the relativity of how much money you have/want/need...
At those sorts of sums people are already made for life.... so going for the glory- coming 2nd or indeed a FT £ and still being paid a good sum- means that the win and the associated fame/glory/respect/etc is why you play for?
Perspective..me in your bubble spot..I need the cash atm, even a min cash so hang around, hope to min cash then, subject to stack sizes push on hard!
Completely get why you may want to secure the min cash first. Trouble is it can cause you to be too conservative and not play ICM optimal in an "over-cautious" way, and get "run over" by the more aggressive guys that are exploiting the shorter stacks on the bubble.
Totally understand why you may want to not risk bubbling though.
Then again? When have I ever been " over-cautious"? FFS!
I suppose the point I was making(badly) is once you've made it £ then surely its only the win (fame/respect/title/other) that counts...Tiger and any of the big poker boys: MattB, Palace, Chikn, lollo etc have got enough cash stashed?
I think in poker the "correct" decision is the one that makes you the most money. From that, I also think a lot of people have an incorrect understanding of what the basic concept/thought behind ICM is.
There isn't 2 ways of playing (going for the win or making ICM decisions) that make the most money. ICM exists because the decisions one makes when following it makes more money than when not (long term, obviously). "Playing for the win" sounds sexy and aggressive as we are playing for the big top prize that seems harder to achieve when making tight ICM folds etc. However, from my understanding of it, that still costs us money long term. Thus playing with ICM in mind/with knowledge of it seems correct.
Disclaimer - bit of a fish and very happy to be proved wrong ^
Interesting thread. I'll have a pop at my two cents on this and hopefully others can also correct me if I'm wrong.
Firstly, I agree that "playing for the win" is a hugely overused phrase to the point that it may seem like it's just an excuse for punting it off. However, saying that ICM decisions will have a higher EV than everything else is also pretty misleading in this context.
ICM is purely a method for working out how much your stack is worth in monetary value at any given point in a game. So comes into play in these scenarios where you're on a bubble and there's someone/people shorter than you because they will likely bust out before you and you'll cash. In this context when you risk x chips in a pot, losing x chips is disproportionately worse for you than the benefit you get when you win the same x chips. However, ICM calculations only take into account the payout structure and the stack sizes.
Therefore, if you're playing a satellite then you are correct that the ICM decision and the highest EV decision will be one and the same because folding over the line will see you win as much as the chip leader. Here you should always follow ICM ranges, adjusted for player tendencies. On the flip side, ICM becomes less and less important the more top heavy the payout structure and is non existent if you're playing winner takes all formats.
The fact that the hand in question is from a progressive bounty game is very important because this won't be factored into any ICM calculations that you do. The bounty structure creates a very top heavy situation where ICM becomes less important. This, coupled with the average stack depth in the game in question, means that even getting a reshove through pre flop will significantly increase your chance of "playing for the win".
Therefore, even if you ran the stack sizes and found this was a losing ICM shove in this instance you could still argue that it makes more money long term despite that. Given how much it increases your first place percentage, where you'll take home the bounties on top of the ladder.
Furthermore, if you follow proper bankroll management then you'll rarely feel any pressure to get a min cash in a normal schedule tourney which, correct me if I'm wrong, was a significant factor in this decision. This is also why Tiger probably wouldn't be poring over ICMizer on the 17th tee. Or Bill Perkins might opt to just call it off on a 100k bubble.
If anyone's looking for an introduction to ICM as a concept then I've not seen anyone explain it as well as Dara O'Kearney in his book "Poker Satellite Strategy". Think I paid around $20 for that book and it explains the concept in more depth and more coherently than some courses with four figure price tags.
And this is now comfortably the best post on the thread.
If anyone's looking for an introduction to ICM as a concept then I've not seen anyone explain it as well as Dara O'Kearney in his book "Poker Satellite Strategy". Think I paid around $20 for that book and it explains the concept in more depth and more coherently than some courses with four figure price tags.
Interestingly enough Dara has just brought out his new book ‘Poker PKO strategy’ which I’m sure will have a ton of useful information in regarding ICM with the added factor of bounties.
@BlairReid , good input, just to add Dara Okearney has a new book out now on PKO strategy, very good and huge section on ICM within the end game of PKOs , highly recommend both books for study .
Comments
If anyone's looking for an introduction to ICM as a concept then I've not seen anyone explain it as well as Dara O'Kearney in his book "Poker Satellite Strategy". Think I paid around $20 for that book and it explains the concept in more depth and more coherently than some courses with four figure price tags.
Interestingly enough Dara has just brought out his new book ‘Poker PKO strategy’ which I’m sure will have a ton of useful information in regarding ICM with the added factor of bounties.