You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
£2 DYM spot
YouMad
Member Posts: 60
Hi All,
I've been screenshotting spots which I'm finding difficult and reviewing them later (using a free ICM nash programme). I thought I'd share this one to see what the consensus is.
As you can see, I'm leaning towards a shove (and think I did). No reads, apart from SB is solid.
Any discussion welcome
I've been screenshotting spots which I'm finding difficult and reviewing them later (using a free ICM nash programme). I thought I'd share this one to see what the consensus is.
As you can see, I'm leaning towards a shove (and think I did). No reads, apart from SB is solid.
Any discussion welcome
Comments
I was just puzzled that the calculator came back with KQo+ and K9s+. However, I think I had FGS (future game simulations) disabled, which would disregard us having to pay the BB next hand.
With it enabled, it shows it as a clear shove (which I thought it should be!).
I'm still getting back into playing and just getting into studying. As they say, "I've learned that I still have a lot to learn."
I was second guessing myself with what this software was telling me (computer says no!)
Onto the hand in question, I would probably be shoving this all day as well. But a few thoughts that spring to mind are, quite often at this level you have a weak player to your right, who makes up their SB with any two, and I mean any two. And proceeds to check down to the river if they hit nothing. So if the table has been on the loose side, you could opt to likely see a free flop in the next hand.
I've lost count of the amount of times my BB has been checkdown by the SB, and won the pot with T high or J high, because they have checked down their 83's and the like.
There is also a sitout, which may give you a better chance to steal his BB, if you get the chance.
I'm sorry, I would love to give you sound reasoning with poker theory, but I don't really have any extensive knowledge of that. But I'd trust the poker software.
Good luck at the tables
Don't sweat this one
The issue lies with the information you input into the software and the settings you use. If you find yourself disagreeing with poker software then it's best to err on the side of caution. I'm yet to see a winning player just blatantly disregard any learning/tracking tools. Thinking you know better than a solver is as logical as thinking online poker is rigged, with some added ego.
As you've identified yourself, the issue here came from your choice to work it out for pure ICM rather than including FGS. If you're gonna do calculations at these sort of stack depths from utg, especially for flat payout structures, then future game simulation is a must.
Having said that I still don't think this is the most efficient way to study at these stakes. Running the calculations will get you more accurate answers than asking on the forum will for sure. But it's still very time consuming and is usually used to get peace of mind on one decision rather than to learn a concept. If you're just starting studying then I'd say just buy a book on general ICM then put serious volume in whilst trying to apply the concepts from it.