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
'Playing Poker' using ICM
TheWaddy
Member Posts: 1,592
in Poker Chat
ICM (Independent Chip Model) became a thing mainly as a result of online variations of short handed 'poker' . It is better known these days as standing for 'Individual Calls with Mediocracy'.
As sometimes absolutely everyone at your poker table is working to these charts in the modern spin and go's, it is often going to pan out as one big donkfest. If you ever see a televised MTT final table these days, if they are all earlies twenties, all wearing white tracksuits, all have headphones and black caps on, you know there is going to be little poker played. They just do what the charts say.
Its has been highly succesful online, due to the charts saying call with K10o etc and then obviously such hands winning at a rate in excess of the actual odds. Being aware of a ICM robot, rather than conforming to being one and using it to your advantage should be way to win now as its so rife. Online, of course, this is always going to be difficult, due to the problematic high win rate for behind hands.
The best example of ICM being exposed was Cheong v Duhamel 2010 WSOP Main event. Seriously, can you imagine blowing 95m on 600k-1.2m blinds with A7o, just because of a chart suggestion and not thinking rationally? I think Cheong forgot momentarily that he was playing live.... i wouldnt fancy Duhamel's QQ v A7o in an online tournament.
So when events happen, like when JohnMonty is successful in risking his comfortable qualifying position with just K10o against AJs... i will say he was correct in what his ICM calculator on his screen was telling him and congratulations.... and thank god i only play in such tourneys for free and can go back to play HU making my own poker decisions and not what the bot tells me.
As sometimes absolutely everyone at your poker table is working to these charts in the modern spin and go's, it is often going to pan out as one big donkfest. If you ever see a televised MTT final table these days, if they are all earlies twenties, all wearing white tracksuits, all have headphones and black caps on, you know there is going to be little poker played. They just do what the charts say.
Its has been highly succesful online, due to the charts saying call with K10o etc and then obviously such hands winning at a rate in excess of the actual odds. Being aware of a ICM robot, rather than conforming to being one and using it to your advantage should be way to win now as its so rife. Online, of course, this is always going to be difficult, due to the problematic high win rate for behind hands.
The best example of ICM being exposed was Cheong v Duhamel 2010 WSOP Main event. Seriously, can you imagine blowing 95m on 600k-1.2m blinds with A7o, just because of a chart suggestion and not thinking rationally? I think Cheong forgot momentarily that he was playing live.... i wouldnt fancy Duhamel's QQ v A7o in an online tournament.
So when events happen, like when JohnMonty is successful in risking his comfortable qualifying position with just K10o against AJs... i will say he was correct in what his ICM calculator on his screen was telling him and congratulations.... and thank god i only play in such tourneys for free and can go back to play HU making my own poker decisions and not what the bot tells me.
Comments
The reason being, it's ludicrous what you are suggesting - that you know better than John Nash, a Nobel Prize winning mathematician and ICM.
You are off your **** rocker.
It's great provided the opponents are playing "correctly". Which of course they never do. For a variety of reasons. The most obvious being that there are invariably people not playing correctly, either because they lack knowledge or because they are scared money.
Those that do understand ICM who are good players will inevitably make adjustments from ICM based on their understanding of how their opponents are deviating.
But ICM remains a great starting point. Has absolutely nothing to do with short-handed poker.
When did you last see a televised final table? These days there is always a good spread of ages. And people who are too busy listening to their headphones are missing out on a lot of important info-which is why they are a rare sight these days.
The rest of your theories are just nonsense. You should be on the conspiracy thread. As an example, if there wasn't a decent win rate for "behind" hands, weak players wouldn't play. If I keep playing the 70/30 hands, I'll go bust lots. But I will win money precisely because of the times I lose.
For instance, if its folded round to the small blind, yer boys chart will say an all in is correct with almost any two and in a lot of cases where the money jumps, 100% any 2 especially if you have them covered.
But wait, these days the BB has his little chart with HIS calling range... and if he knows 100% that the SB is working to ICM, he will know the SB can literally hold any 2... So what was an easy fold with J6o even in his pocket chart.... gets him thinking that becomes a call for him, knowing what he does.
And there we have the birth of the all in fest, with inferior hands. Im not sure thats what Mr Nash intended, i think he was working on the fact that he would be the only one doing it at any given table for it to be effective.
And icm makes you call tighter not wider, have a nice day
The simple fact is that we all, if we want to keep playing, need to make adjustments in line with that evolution.
The alternatives don't bear thinking about. Imagine having to single table £1 PLO8 HU, or making stuff up about online poker being rigged.
Thank goodness none of us have chosen that path...
The more you moan on the more it becomes apparent you don’t really know what you’re talking about, if you accepted that maybe someone could help you.
You are always one of the first to comment like this, yet when i asked for screenshot of hands where you could only describe it as a complete 'giveaway attempt', that went on to actually lose.... you or anyone else, couldnt come up with a single one. Despite Hi lo actually something you have played several series in on here!
Clearly, there would have been great joy to prove me wrong... i mean i post example after example and could do several times a day of giveaway attempts getting inexplicable help outs. Not one ever seen to lose. Even the one above is extremely tame in comparison to most,,, but i guess when you have 2/3 of your stack left and still call all in on the turn.... it qualifies as a giveaway attempt... and of course, it didnt lose either, so is an ok example.
When something is never happening in a random game, where the odds are actually in your favour, it kind of rings alarm bells.... hence the drop to micro games and a white flag to what you are being conclusively told.
My point is online Hold 'em, especially in short handed gimmicky games, there is no reads, no natural talent, no nothing.... except for a program running alongside, giving you ranges and away you go.
If you consider yourself a poker god for doing that, then congratulations.
I find it interesting that the initial replies are from those doing exactly that. You see, they love the performance online, as when their 75s auto shove in the SB runs into the BB average players AA, there is a very good chance they will STILL win online.
Hence the successful online pro bot defending online poker to the hilt and the part timer thinking wtf is going on here!
As bbMike said, if you wanted to learn and improve, plenty of people here would help you.
I know why i play small stakes, im just wondering why you do when you have this incredible self-proclaimed handle in the game.
What im challenging is players actual ability, when they are just following someone elses decisions that they have written for you.... my variation does not involve that and i have to do it for myself....
Almost no one uses ICM charts for spin and goes as it is winner takes all. for all intents and purposes you might as well treat spin and goes as ultra short stack cash games.
I mentioned nash charts not ICM charts do you understand the difference?
Also at any reasonable level most regs dont use the nash charts heads up until less then 6bb the reason been is that a mix of limping and shoving beats the nash charts I have done spread sheet work on this to check and the solvers show the same too.
What is it that you actually want to achieve here I am genuinely wondering now. Like is it just a troll?
Do you seriously believe online poker is rigged? how exactly for who exactly? Do you think every decent reg making a decent profit is actually an employee of the poker site?
Do you think they fix it for the losing players? I mean I have been running bad on stars recently I got to $206 then went down to $170 and then back up to $189. I mean It seemed like they fixed the deck against me because I was winning too much and then I am losing every all in. but then because it now puts me in the losing fish category because I lost over the last load of games it fixed the deck so that I win again, and so the cycle repeats that or it just random variance?
The one concession I can give you sometimes because I just like to stir the pot is computers can't have real random numbers they are incapable of this. Poker sites use RNGs that are indistinguishable from random and no statistics test has found a bias in poker sites RNG that differs in some predictable way from true random numbers. But yes computers cannot have truly random numbers.
Have fun with him going off on that one everyone not understanding it and grabbing that point and butchering it.
I would post a pic of DR evil with his evil laugh for me doing that but I suck with tech. So just imagine it.