Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

ICM - standard overshove?

Reply to Thread
  1. x walks x x walks x is offline

    London
    United Kingdom

    Posts: 1,295
    Joined: Mar 08

    Nov 18th, 2008 (11/18/2008 5:01am)

    Is this the correct play...i know im flipping but i think i just have to take that chance!!

    I wasnt sure how to check on icm as this is a 27 manner paying 1-5th

    1st - $100

    2nd - $72

    3rd - $48

    pokerstars Game #22138433568: Tournament #121239293, $10+$1 Hold'em No Limit - Level XII (800/1600) - 2008/11/17 23:24:20 ET
    Table '121239293 3' 9-max Seat #4 is the button
    Seat 3: x walks x (10909 in chips)
    Seat 4: pickpocketb (20397 in chips)
    Seat 9: 2 ACES hmm (9194 in chips)
    x walks x: posts the ante 75
    pickpocketb: posts the ante 75
    2 ACES hmm: posts the ante 75
    2 ACES hmm: posts small blind 800
    x walks x: posts big blind 1600
    *** HOLE CARDS ***
    Dealt to x walks x [4d 4h]
    pickpocketb: raises 2440 to 4040
    2 ACES hmm: folds
    x walks x: raises 6794 to 10834 and is all-in
    pickpocketb: calls 6794
    *** FLOP *** [8d 3c Qs]
    *** TURN *** [8d 3c Qs] [Td]
    *** RIVER *** [8d 3c Qs Td] [7d]
    *** SHOW DOWN ***
    x walks x: shows [4d 4h] (a pair of Fours)
    pickpocketb: shows [Jh Qc] (a pair of Queens)
    pickpocketb collected 22693 from pot
    *** SUMMARY ***
    Total pot 22693 | Rake 0
    Board [8d 3c Qs Td 7d]
    Seat 3: x walks x (big blind) showed [4d 4h] and lost with a pair of Fours
    Seat 4: pickpocketb (button) showed [Jh Qc] and won (22693) with a pair of Queens
    Seat 9: 2 ACES hmm (small blind) folded before Flop
  2. CincinnatiKid CincinnatiKid is offline

    Trenton, OH
    United States

    Posts: 256
    Joined: Feb 05

    Nov 18th, 2008 (11/18/2008 5:04am) in reply to x walks x

    It doesn't get anymore standard.
  3. x walks x x walks x is offline

    London
    United Kingdom

    Posts: 1,295
    Joined: Mar 08

    Nov 18th, 2008 (11/18/2008 5:08am) in reply to CincinnatiKid

    My roommate didnt seem to agree, thats why i posted it.
    Thread Starter
  4. CincinnatiKid CincinnatiKid is offline

    Trenton, OH
    United States

    Posts: 256
    Joined: Feb 05

    Nov 18th, 2008 (11/18/2008 5:13am) in reply to x walks x

     
    Originally Posted by x walks x View Post

    My roommate didnt seem to agree, thats why i posted it.

    You won't find a more standard situation than this. Your friend is a goofball.

    YOU GOT YOUR MONEY IN AS A FAVORITE!
  5. Jennifear Jennifear is offline

    Niagara Falls, NY
    United States

    Posts: 10,222
    Joined: Nov 05

    Nov 18th, 2008 (11/18/2008 5:21am) in reply to x walks x

    This is a fold, going under the assumption that you have zero FE.

    Here's the Nash Equilibrium for this spot:

    <TABLE class=simple cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=3 border=1><TBODY><TR><TH width=40>PU</TH><TH width=40>CA</TH><TH width=40>OC</TH><TH>Range</TH></TR><TR><TD>BU</TD><TD><TD><TD>56.6%, 22+ Ax+ K2s+ K5o+ Q2s+ Q8o+ J2s+ J7o+ T3s+ T7o+ 95s+ 97o+ 85s+ 87o 74s+ 76o 64s+ 53s+ <<What he should be shoving</TD></TR><TR><TD><TD>SB</TD><TD><TD>9.7%, 77+ A8s+ ATo+ KJs+ </TD></TR><TR><TD><TD><TD>BB</TD><TD>6.8%, 88+ AJs+ AJo+ </TD></TR><TR><TD><TD>BB</TD><TD><TD>14.9%, 66+ A5s+ A8o+ KTs+ KJo+ <<What you should be calling.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
    He's probably not raising 56%+ here, so I'd tend to play this spot even tighter than Nash suggests.

    ICM Nash Calculator Results
  6. x walks x x walks x is offline

    London
    United Kingdom

    Posts: 1,295
    Joined: Mar 08

    Nov 18th, 2008 (11/18/2008 5:24am) in reply to Jennifear

    Ok so he was right when he said 66+

    Is it "that" bad though Jen?

    He was a very active player

    Edit: How do you apply ICM when you are playing mtt sngs (27/45mans) and are short stacked or does ICM not apply to these situations (do i use pokerstove for this)?
    Thread Starter
  7. elusively elusively is offline

    MD
    United States

    Posts: 5,260
    Joined: Feb 07

    Nov 18th, 2008 (11/18/2008 7:16am) in reply to x walks x

    I'm thinking open-shoving ATC is more profitable than this shove. He's folding like never, as Jennifear noted.
  8. ch1pwrecked ch1pwrecked is offline

    United Kingdom

    Posts: 407
    Joined: Oct 06

    Nov 18th, 2008 (11/18/2008 7:23am) in reply to x walks x

    ICM applies to any tournament at any time i believe walks, essentially it just equates how many chips you have to the amount of prize equity you have at the current stage of play.

    Maybe Jen can put it in easier terms than me, she recently helped me out with a similar question to yours in this thread below, hopefully it can help you out a bit.

    What i've been doing is using the nash icm calculators (linked in the below article) to get the percentages, and then using pokerstove's sliding percentage scale to see the hand ranges.

    EDIT: you can also see hand ranges using the nash calculator but the pokerstove is easier to see

    Hope this helps.<A href="http://www.pocketfives.com/poker-forums/7/which-icm-calculators-are-able-to-calculate-for-18-man-tournies_3F00_-_2800_also-push_2F00_fold-question_2900_-3564906/p/3564906#3564906" >

    http://www.pocketfives.com/poker-forums/7/which-icm-calculators-are-able-to-calculate-for-18-man-tournies_3F00_-_2800_also-push_2F00_fold-question_2900_-3564906/p/3564906#3564906</A>
  9. Jennifear Jennifear is offline

    Niagara Falls, NY
    United States

    Posts: 10,222
    Joined: Nov 05

    Nov 18th, 2008 (11/18/2008 11:48am) in reply to x walks x

     
    Originally Posted by x walks x View Post

    Ok so he was right when he said 66+

    Is it "that" bad though Jen?

    He was a very active player

    Edit: How do you apply ICM when you are playing mtt sngs (27/45mans) and are short stacked or does ICM not apply to these situations (do i use pokerstove for this)?

    Since he was "very active", then the call was not that bad at all (slightly -$EV). 66+ is correct if he is shoving 56%. However, if he was shoving a more typical 25% (what a random will usually push here) then 44 is horribad.

    You can apply ICM to this situation. Just change the payout structures from the regular format to (100,72,48).
Reply to Thread

Similar Threads