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.
Options
ICM - Is it just about the money? Tiger Woods golf comparison.
StayOrGo
Member Posts: 12,127
Hi guys.
Bubbled the Sheriff today, because I disregarded ICM and 3bet shoved my 15 BB's with KJ in the SB following a Button raise, with a player on the other table shorter than me. (Unfortunately @MattBates woke up with AQ in the BB and despite the Jack in the flop, his best hand held by the rivered Ace, no complaints obvs)
So this is the thing. Should we play to WIN or always make ICM decisions?
This isn't intended to be a "logic" question as "ICM optimal" would be the answer, it's more of a "What's important to you "as an individual" question?"
For example, when Tiger Woods is on the 17th hole on Sunday. The "ICM Money Decision" might be to ensure second place by parring the last two holes as the leader is two shots ahead and there are several players in the club house one shot behind him.
Of course he wants a "W" so he is going to try and birdie the last two and/or a par and an eagle, so will take the high risk play that potentially risks going in the water/out of bounds.
OK so we are not Tiger Woods and certainly not on the PGA tour, but, even at our level, shouldn't there be some sense of satisfaction in going for the win, and not just a min cash?
I mean the pay jumps aren't life changing are they? Although equally, the glory isn't life changing either.
What do you think guys? Go for the win or play ICM smart?
Bubbled the Sheriff today, because I disregarded ICM and 3bet shoved my 15 BB's with KJ in the SB following a Button raise, with a player on the other table shorter than me. (Unfortunately @MattBates woke up with AQ in the BB and despite the Jack in the flop, his best hand held by the rivered Ace, no complaints obvs)
So this is the thing. Should we play to WIN or always make ICM decisions?
This isn't intended to be a "logic" question as "ICM optimal" would be the answer, it's more of a "What's important to you "as an individual" question?"
For example, when Tiger Woods is on the 17th hole on Sunday. The "ICM Money Decision" might be to ensure second place by parring the last two holes as the leader is two shots ahead and there are several players in the club house one shot behind him.
Of course he wants a "W" so he is going to try and birdie the last two and/or a par and an eagle, so will take the high risk play that potentially risks going in the water/out of bounds.
OK so we are not Tiger Woods and certainly not on the PGA tour, but, even at our level, shouldn't there be some sense of satisfaction in going for the win, and not just a min cash?
I mean the pay jumps aren't life changing are they? Although equally, the glory isn't life changing either.
What do you think guys? Go for the win or play ICM smart?
Comments
P.S I won't three bet you too light on the bubble lol
In your situation tonight you may well go with your hand. If it was a guy who satted in and normally plays £1 mtts then passing may be the better decision.
If it was the Main Event and the next ladder is worth 400k, then you may not shove here.
Generally going for the win will be the best approach. There are a number of ways of navigating going for the win though.
Often people will make a poor play and then excuse it by saying they were going for the win.
Let’s take your example with Tiger. He will always look to win. He’d rather go for it and come 10th than lock up 2nd.
But he will still take a considered approach. Let’s say that 17th is a Par 5. He doesn’t quite get his tee shot and he’s left 290 from a hanging lie into an Island green. Going for the green here is a 1 in a 100 shot even for him. So he‘ll knock it to 80 yards and look to make birdie from there.
Yes I agree with your analysis re Tiger on the 17th here, as he could still go birdie, birdie, but say it was the 18th and he needs Eagle (on a par 5) to force a play off. (Leader already in club house)
Perhaps he'd take the 100/1 shot then? I mean being Tiger, he would, wouldn't he?
https://nypost.com/2000/07/24/duvals-day-a-downer-bunker-costs-david-315g/
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 ^
I'll always try to get to min cash if my stack is similar to those around the bubble and I think about going for the win when in the top ten, I think i fold to often just because I want to ladder and it's probably why I don't win very often
My mind doesn't work like the good players and I make lots of mistakes
+1 Me too but probably fold to much
Thinking about the Tiger analogy - He,s the best in the world (or was) . and no-one will remember his 2nds or 3rds and the money doesn,t really matter to him.
He wants to be the GOAT and the win will help toward that. Just like a top pro poker player playing a world series event - Plus if they get the win it adds to their profile and their more likely to get extra money from sponsorship etc so effectively there's more for the win
On a Sky nightly game i,m just trying to make the "correct" decision (most profitable)
I think top pros just want the win, I think it was Graeme Souness who said runners - up medals mean nothing, straight in the bin with them.
Tiger is just going for wins all the time, I don't think money comes in to it, but if your'e a journeyman and it gets to the tickly bit you start thinking if If I ladder up a place that's a new car, another place that's a new house and so on.
This is often very effective as firstly the really decent money is all final table + and secondly there's so much dead money from those looking to ladder and they're almost playing their cards face up.
So by employing the tactic of playing to win I'm often getting cashes of 15x buy in and better where as laddering might see me win 2x - 7x buy in.
Yes it all goes wrong at times but I think if I get home and I'm happy with how I played then ok no dramas, move on.
Online is different as I'm merely attempting to keep a bankroll so I can play and yes online I will ladder and take ICM into consideration, sit out, burn the clock and generally just aim to get past the bubble and nurse the stack through the pay jumps.
For me, i think if it was on the bubble of WSOP M/E, I just fold it, but bubble in the Sheriff, I'm kind of OK how I played it, although it probably wasn't GTO / (ICM Optimal)
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.
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 completely agree with your "logic" obs, there is no "rational" argument to counter it with, however is it always just about logic and money, what about passion and achievement?
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.
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.