More ICM - It's That Important! (Day 25 Course Discussion)

[Debi]

More ICM, It's That Important teaches us how to use ICM to generate specific ranges.

If you have not yet read Day 25 and watched the video for Day 25 - take a few minutes now to do that and then come back here to discuss it:

More ICM, It's That Important

Worried about being able to memorize specific ranges? You don't have to be exact. This is the first of 5 rules we learn in the ebook.

All of us can reasonably discuss ICM at this point so let's tackle it with Collin and Katie in this thread.

 

[Polytarp]

The main point I recall from this instruction set was to "be aware" of all the legitimate hands that could be played with the ICM providing the data on how much to bet. If I don't know the texture of proper play (as in blackjack there is a basic strategy to minimize your losses) then you can't adjust this information to play against knowledgeable players.
I played numerous cash games today, at 888 the 2/5 cent SNAP game for "Hand of the Day" and poker stars 5/10 cent ZOOM for the Aces promotion that cost me $25 for the $1 scratch and win. These games sensitized me to how much more I needed to be aware of via the ICM.
Using the blackjack analogy, when the dealer is fast you've got to be adept at counting cards quickly and naturally. When calculating player ranges and bet sizes in fast moving cash games for the best mathematical play, this must be done with a bit of "Zen" also.

This course has given me a confidence boost to try swimming in more "sharkey" waters. I haven't played the $5 Spin games for a long while and I found them to be no big deal. During the hockey strike poker boom, people still had regular jobs they went to so anyone playing online poker during week day morning/afternoons was probably a serious player. With Covid this isn't the case because of the many people not able to work and students who must stay at home (and who may have a penchant for gambling) are a different mix.

 

[Polytarp]

I've been thinking a bit more about your emphasis on ICM and using PT4. Anything that can run as useful poker software must have a valid mathematical basis. I try to understand the theory that this software is built on to determine if I should believe what is presented or write it off as a non- realistic idealized theory (ie. 2 person game theory can only be stretched so far). In P vs NP, algorithms implementing LLL maybe won't get the best answer but close enough is all I'm looking for. Similarly, if I understand the tools that you have showcased here well enough, perhaps I can "roll-my-own" script in a spreadsheet program ..? How much of your success (you are both very successful..in more ways than one!) is or has been tied to your use of poker software? As professionals, will your win rate still be the same on party poker which doesn't allow trackers?

Final note, a couple of years ago I finished 301st out of a field of about 4500 in the Sunday Million flying by the seat of my pants. Ten years ago, I finished 80th in the Party Poker Sunday game (after having been disconnected from the game) and had other similar finishes under different screen names, again by the seat of my pants, but I never made the final table. With the help of this course, I would like to improve my prior performances in a very measured and transparent way. Without your having played against me (knowingly anyways), what would be a realistic forecast of a final year end "net' bankroll for me and how many hours total (study and playing poker) would be required to correlate with that value at year end? [I hope you noticed my diligence in assimilating and providing feedback in my attempts to apply what has been shown here.]

 

[pip77]

I once took a SNG course by Greg Jones and he gave us a magic range for resteals of AQ, 88. He said we could go a few steps down against loose players and a few steps up against tighter players.

So facing a raise from tight player, then AQs 99 and against a loose player, Aj, 66.

The magic range you provide is a lot looser and I was wandering why this is - is it due to the game changing, antes, or was the range Greg provided not optimal?

I know he was a student of yours and would love to hear your thoughts on using the AQ 88 magic range in today’s 9 man turbo sng (micros)

Also, do you have any advice or tips on how to create ranges in Icmizer for different stack sizes?

I also have your book, sit snd go strategy. Is it still relevant for today’s games?

Hope you don’t mind the questions

Thanks in advance!

I’m really enjoying the course..

 

[Collin Moshman]

Great question Pip. Greg is an IRL friend of mine and excellent teacher, I helped him some with that book and forgot that he used the magic range to refer to 88+ AQ+ in it, so I'm very glad you pointed that out!

In today's games, that would generally be too-tight a resteal range except in certain spots like a TAG player opening in early position. (I don't mean to criticize Greg at all for this -- my original SNG book has a lot of advice that's also much too tight for today's games.)

So anyway, while it's very situation-dependent, the 22/A2s/JTs range is great for a lot of spots now.

My book is still very relevant in terms of fundamentals but gives too-tight advice (like I mentioned above) in a lot of spots, just because the specific way the game plays has evolved. Our course here updates it for the modern games.

ICMizer allows you to modify the stacks any way you like, so I recommend just playing around with making the effective stack higher or lower and seeing how that modifies the output.

Great questions and thanks for the nice words!

 

[pip77]

Great question Pip. Greg is an IRL friend of mine and excellent teacher, I helped him some with that book and forgot that he used the magic range to refer to 88+ AQ+ in it, so I'm very glad you pointed that out!

In today's games, that would generally be too-tight a resteal range except in certain spots like a TAG player opening in early position. (I don't mean to criticize Greg at all for this -- my original SNG book has a lot of advice that's also much too tight for today's games.)

So anyway, while it's very situation-dependent, the 22/A2s/JTs range is great for a lot of spots now.

My book is still very relevant in terms of fundamentals but gives too-tight advice (like I mentioned above) in a lot of spots, just because the specific way the game plays has evolved. Our course here updates it for the modern games.

ICMizer allows you to modify the stacks any way you like, so I recommend just playing around with making the effective stack higher or lower and seeing how that modifies the output.

Great questions and thanks for the nice words!

Thanks Collin

 

[pip77]

Thanks Collin..

Does Greg still play? He is a great teacher and the course he did was very good..

I remember is videos on DTB

QUOTE]

 

[Debi]

I once took a SNG course by Greg Jones and he gave us a magic range for resteals of AQ, 88. He said we could go a few steps down against loose players and a few steps up against tighter players.

So facing a raise from tight player, then AQs 99 and against a loose player, Aj, 66.

The magic range you provide is a lot looser and I was wandering why this is - is it due to the game changing, antes, or was the range Greg provided not optimal?

I know he was a student of yours and would love to hear your thoughts on using the AQ 88 magic range in today’s 9 man turbo sng (micros)

Also, do you have any advice or tips on how to create ranges in Icmizer for different stack sizes?

I also have your book, sit snd go strategy. Is it still relevant for today’s games?

Hope you don’t mind the questions

Thanks in advance!

I’m really enjoying the course..

Greg coached me for awhile back in the day - loved him!

 

[Collin Moshman]

Greg is a great teacher for sure! Pip I believe he still plays, but I think his main hobby now though is jiu-jitsu. I see him posting a lot of cool updates about his martial arts.

 

[Debi]

This video is getting a lot of views in YouTube - anxious for members to get this far and join in on the discussion!

 

[cferdi]

OMG! My head is bursting with all the info. At my age it gets more and more difficult to remember all the different things - and ICM for some reason blows my mind - always has.

Trying to remember all the different stack sizes when to shove, when not to, effective stack sizes, pot odds, outs/odds, different ranges for different situations - aaargh!

I think I'm getting there and it is slowly sinking in, but a lot of the time it is more like instinctive rather than actual math, if you understand what I'm trying to say. As I study, my decisions are changing, but not always aware of #of BB ante vs no ante, etc on a conscious level, but it's like there is something there on an unconscious level that changes my decision process. I know I definitely bluff and semi-bluff more than I used to (unless I'm surrounded by maniacs as is actually often the case) and I have caught more bluffs than I used to also. My playing range is changing and I am far more positionally aware (is that a word?).

So although it feels like the top of my head is about to explode, I do know something is changing - so I thank you for that (but not so much for the headache ).

Cheers

 

[Collin Moshman]

This video is getting a lot of views in YouTube - anxious for members to get this far and join in on the discussion!

Very glad to hear as this is a great topic to learn!

OMG! My head is bursting with all the info. At my age it gets more and more difficult to remember all the different things - and ICM for some reason blows my mind - always has.

Trying to remember all the different stack sizes when to shove, when not to, effective stack sizes, pot odds, outs/odds, different ranges for different situations - aaargh!

I think I'm getting there and it is slowly sinking in, but a lot of the time it is more like instinctive rather than actual math, if you understand what I'm trying to say. As I study, my decisions are changing, but not always aware of #of BB ante vs no ante, etc on a conscious level, but it's like there is something there on an unconscious level that changes my decision process. I know I definitely bluff and semi-bluff more than I used to (unless I'm surrounded by maniacs as is actually often the case) and I have caught more bluffs than I used to also. My playing range is changing and I am far more positionally aware (is that a word?).

So although it feels like the top of my head is about to explode, I do know something is changing - so I thank you for that (but not so much for the headache ).

Cheers

Haha don't worry Cferdi, it will become second-nature with time and practice

 

[cferdi]

Haha don't worry Cferdi, it will become second-nature with time and practice

Yes, I think it kind of is, veeeeery slowly, lol - thanks again:ciao:

 

[Phoenix Wright]

ICM-ize!

Okay, seriously though: lots of information here; software is surely a powerful tool.

 

[belizebum]

Is using this software strictly for studying purposes, I mean, you dont have time to use it while playing?

 

[CadoARAJ]

Very important class, ty.
I will try these softwares.
Do you know if has a software or an easy way to calculate an ICM at progressive KO tourneys - ask.
For example, at a $3,3 PKO tourney, a villain went all in with 4k stack and with a bounty of $4,5 at his head. This overy buy in value over his/her head can increase our ICM calling chances or just not change anything - ask.

 

[Collin Moshman]

Is using this software strictly for studying purposes, I mean, you dont have time to use it while playing?

Great question. Yes and in fact it's against most site TOS (rules) to use while playing. Stars will warn you for doing it.

Very important class, ty.
I will try these softwares.
Do you know if has a software or an easy way to calculate an ICM at progressive KO tourneys - ask.
For example, at a $3,3 PKO tourney, a villain went all in with 4k stack and with a bounty of $4,5 at his head. This overy buy in value over his/her head can increase our ICM calling chances or just not change anything - ask.

Yes, ICMizer can handle these calculations. You can have it tell you the answer to these questions

 

[CadoARAJ]

Great question. Yes and in fact it's against most site TOS (rules) to use while playing. Stars will warn you for doing it.




Yes, ICMizer can handle these calculations. You can have it tell you the answer to these questions

Ty for your 3 straight answers and congrats for you boyh excellence course. Pretty usual.

 

[Micro Maven]

thank you for the video. ICM makes my brain hurt but this is very useful info

 

[Luvart]

Finished Day #25.

The chapter cleared some questions I always had about the application of ICM during the push/fold stage.

It lays out some fundamentls of the push/fold strategy very well. When it comes to the 15bb shove first in, I'm probably going to muck the very bottom of the "Magic Range" from EP, hands like 44-22, J10s, etc.

Important thing is the re-steal stuff from the blinds when facing late position steals too.

Another thing I want to mention is that you need to put all those concepts into action by playing a big amount of tourneys and then study the results using your HUD software. For people that don't use such kind of softwares (like me), the bitter truth is that it slows our progress significantly.

It's a part of the game that HUDs have their usefulness (although I'm super pro about banning HUD during online play, and use them only for study purposes).

A much-needed break for the weekend and then back on Monday with the first day of the last week of this course.

:icon_chee

 

[PsychoVas]

ICM is still a foggy concept for me, but instinct kicks in and balances things out. In the J9 on the BB hand, does ICMizer incorporate fold equity?

 

[Collin Moshman]

Finished Day #25.

The chapter cleared some questions I always had about the application of ICM during the push/fold stage.

It lays out some fundamentls of the push/fold strategy very well. When it comes to the 15bb shove first in, I'm probably going to muck the very bottom of the "Magic Range" from EP, hands like 44-22, J10s, etc.

Important thing is the re-steal stuff from the blinds when facing late position steals too.

Another thing I want to mention is that you need to put all those concepts into action by playing a big amount of tourneys and then study the results using your HUD software. For people that don't use such kind of softwares (like me), the bitter truth is that it slows our progress significantly.

It's a part of the game that HUDs have their usefulness (although I'm super pro about banning HUD during online play, and use them only for study purposes).

A much-needed break for the weekend and then back on Monday with the first day of the last week of this course.

:icon_chee

Great progress Luvart, and good luck with the final week of the course!

ICM is still a foggy concept for me, but instinct kicks in and balances things out. In the J9 on the BB hand, does ICMizer incorporate fold equity?

Yes, in calculating the initial shover's range it takes fold equity into the account. And generally speaking, if it's possible for an opponent to fold, ICMizer makes a good assessment of the fold equity to do its calculations.

 

[freddydr87]

I loved the magical rangue is easy to remember and in fact is a very strong rangue when we are runnng low.

 

[redboy23]

Hello CCers,

It is great to get another useful tool with which to play. The idea of those ranges are really interesting and will take some getting used to. The Mathematics of poker is undeniable.

I have a phrase - big stack sick joke! It hurts when they have that luxury of calling with the wide ranges since they are not in danger of busting out and very often win the pot by crushing premium hands.

Such is life, it is still exciting when things work out. It washes out all the memories of bad beats and sick jokes!

 

[Polytarp]

ICMizer allows you to modify the stacks any way you like, so I recommend just playing around with making the effective stack higher or lower and seeing how that modifies the output.

Can you provide a rationale for using either the MH algorithm or the Ben Roberts model?
In Roberts' 2011 paper he also mentioned Monte Carlo simulation and provided a link to T. Ferguson's paper (..now I know where Chris got his smarts from!).

I'm grappling with applying the right concepts to these games and am questioning the validity of certain approaches. Pauli's quote.."it's not even wrong" gives me pause to think about what I'm looking at and to understand it to the best of my ability. If I'm going to be making decisions balancing tens of thousands of $ (presently I'm balancing tens of cents) when ITM I would like to justify my reasons for doing what I did instead of saying..shucks (or other expletive), I dunno what happened..my chips were there then poooof!..all gone!

As a final note, is FGS or some accelerated version of it the way to go?