ICM effects when you are in the early stages of a tournament?

TooncesTDCTooncesTDC Red Chipper Posts: 29 ✭✭
The basic question is if in the early stages of a tournament the ICM effect of a poker play is marginal and whether you should play the hand similar to a live game where all chips are of equal value.

The math version of this question is if you went all-in in the beginning of a typical MTT (lets say 100 players, since the ICMIZER I tried to use seemed to maximize at that) that pays 15%, what equity would you need in the pot to double vs bust your stack to break even in tournament equity? What about to triple your stack? The answer is certainly greater than 50%, but how much greater? I tried to set up a simulation in the trial of ICMIZER and thought I got an answer of 50.7% which felt like the effect was marginal, but before I could confirm that I running the simulation properly, the trial expired for today.

Comments

  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 1,422 -
    As I'll explain in my tournament series, if you're playing in a tournament where you have a skill edge (and why, other than satelliting in, would you do anything different?), shade anything the math tells you by a few %.

    As I mentioned in the other thread, it is the case that further from the money ICM effects get smaller. That said, they get larger the smaller the field and % of players getting paid, which is why the solution to SNGs early is "play tighter than a very tight thing that's been tied up really tight."
    Moderation In Moderation
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,688 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I don't have precise answers on tournament ideas, but i can tell you one thing from years of experience doing tournament reportage: there is an observable trend that early giant stacks - not just good sized stacks, but huge leads - tend to make it deep in the money and to final one or two tables, yet seem to have had no or little correlation with taking first.
  • TessaiTessai Red Chipper Posts: 14 ✭✭
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    ... which is why the solution to SNGs early is "play tighter than a very tight thing that's been tied up really tight."

    That accounts for all-in plays doesn't it?

    In the early stages of SNGs you normally have huge implied odds and are deep stacked, so small pairs and suited connectors become profitable.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 1,422 -
    Tessai wrote: »
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    ... which is why the solution to SNGs early is "play tighter than a very tight thing that's been tied up really tight."

    That accounts for all-in plays doesn't it?

    In the early stages of SNGs you normally have huge implied odds and are deep stacked, so small pairs and suited connectors become profitable.

    It's certainly true that small pairs and suited connectors require deep stacks, but in an SNG the ICM effects kick in pretty early.

    Moderation In Moderation
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 1,422 -
    persuadeo wrote: »
    I don't have precise answers on tournament ideas, but i can tell you one thing from years of experience doing tournament reportage: there is an observable trend that early giant stacks - not just good sized stacks, but huge leads - tend to make it deep in the money and to final one or two tables, yet seem to have had no or little correlation with taking first.

    I think that may be partly due to a selection effect. If the last 2 tables have one person who built a monster stack early and 19 who had big but not huge stacks, it's hard for Mr/s Monster to win.

    Moderation In Moderation
  • TooncesTDCTooncesTDC Red Chipper Posts: 29 ✭✭
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    persuadeo wrote: »
    I don't have precise answers on tournament ideas, but i can tell you one thing from years of experience doing tournament reportage: there is an observable trend that early giant stacks - not just good sized stacks, but huge leads - tend to make it deep in the money and to final one or two tables, yet seem to have had no or little correlation with taking first.

    I think that may be partly due to a selection effect. If the last 2 tables have one person who built a monster stack early and 19 who had big but not huge stacks, it's hard for Mr/s Monster to win.

    Not sure if you are saying the same thing as me, but I imagine it to be selection bias. If there's 100 people left and 1 person has 10-15% of the chips in play, they will look like a monster stack to the field, but still only have a 10-15% chance of winning. Yet the win will feel like the expected result and the loss will be memorable.

    Also giant stacks in tournaments are remembered for when they peaked. The 1 million stack that goes to zero will be remembered for going to zero, while the 1 million stack that goes to 2 million will be remembered for whatever happens to the 2 million stack.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,688 ✭✭✭✭✭
    So you guys are just saying my observation falls under some sort of confused bias?

    Ok thanks, I'll take all your future posts under the same advisement.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 1,422 -
    persuadeo wrote: »
    So you guys are just saying my observation falls under some sort of confused bias?

    Ok thanks, I'll take all your future posts under the same advisement.

    I trust your data, the question is the interpretation. And since you fairly just presented the data I haven't disagreed with you.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,688 ✭✭✭✭✭

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file