> Kind of a poll to see if I have my head up my ass. Lots of limping here. > It doesn't necessarily mean a trap, though it can't totally be ruled out.
> I'm not exactly finding this ICM stuff intuitive. Some games I'll be > almost 100% correct and others I'll miss several key hands.
> PokerStars Game #41004973512: Tournament #251596257, $5.00+$0.50 USD > Hold'em No Limit - Level VI (100/200) - 2010/03/11 13:05:03 ET > Table '251596257 1' 9-max Seat #7 is the button > Seat 1: ChandlerX (1405 in chips) > Seat 4: pigeon43 (6630 in chips) > Seat 5: nutishot (3325 in chips) > Seat 7: Bark67 (1625 in chips) > Seat 8: Carvin2704 (515 in chips) > Carvin2704: posts small blind 100 > ChandlerX: posts big blind 200 > *** HOLE CARDS *** > Dealt to ChandlerX [7s 7h] > pigeon43: calls 200 > nutishot: folds > Carvin2704 said, "argh" > Bark67: folds > Carvin2704: folds > chandlerX:....
> Chandler
I assume this is a one table SNG where top 3 pay? If so, this is an easy push IMHO. You're 2nd shortest and need some chips to secure a money spot, although you're not too unhappy if big stack folds either. If he has a big pair or wins a race, GG.
Michael U.S. American
----------------- "Frankly, I think this was a good post. And on its merit too, not just because you jammed it up Irish Mike's ass pretty good. Icing on the cake. lol"
-Paul Popinjay, 3/19/08
____________________________________________________________________ RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
> > Kind of a poll to see if I have my head up my ass. Lots of limping here. > > It doesn't necessarily mean a trap, though it can't totally be ruled out.
> > I'm not exactly finding this ICM stuff intuitive. Some games I'll be > > almost 100% correct and others I'll miss several key hands.
> > PokerStars Game #41004973512: Tournament #251596257, $5.00+$0.50 USD > > Hold'em No Limit - Level VI (100/200) - 2010/03/11 13:05:03 ET > > Table '251596257 1' 9-max Seat #7 is the button > > Seat 1: ChandlerX (1405 in chips) > > Seat 4: pigeon43 (6630 in chips) > > Seat 5: nutishot (3325 in chips) > > Seat 7: Bark67 (1625 in chips) > > Seat 8: Carvin2704 (515 in chips) > > Carvin2704: posts small blind 100 > > ChandlerX: posts big blind 200 > > *** HOLE CARDS *** > > Dealt to ChandlerX [7s 7h] > > pigeon43: calls 200 > > nutishot: folds > > Carvin2704 said, "argh" > > Bark67: folds > > Carvin2704: folds > > chandlerX:....
> single or multi table? i probably jam there and hope for a call.
> > > Kind of a poll to see if I have my head up my ass. Lots of limping here. > > > It doesn't necessarily mean a trap, though it can't totally be ruled out.
> > > I'm not exactly finding this ICM stuff intuitive. Some games I'll be > > > almost 100% correct and others I'll miss several key hands.
> > Kind of a poll to see if I have my head up my ass. Lots of limping here. > > It doesn't necessarily mean a trap, though it can't totally be ruled out.
> > I'm not exactly finding this ICM stuff intuitive. Some games I'll be > > almost 100% correct and others I'll miss several key hands.
> > PokerStars Game #41004973512: Tournament #251596257, $5.00+$0.50 USD > > Hold'em No Limit - Level VI (100/200) - 2010/03/11 13:05:03 ET > > Table '251596257 1' 9-max Seat #7 is the button > > Seat 1: ChandlerX (1405 in chips) > > Seat 4: pigeon43 (6630 in chips) > > Seat 5: nutishot (3325 in chips) > > Seat 7: Bark67 (1625 in chips) > > Seat 8: Carvin2704 (515 in chips) > > Carvin2704: posts small blind 100 > > ChandlerX: posts big blind 200 > > *** HOLE CARDS *** > > Dealt to ChandlerX [7s 7h] > > pigeon43: calls 200 > > nutishot: folds > > Carvin2704 said, "argh" > > Bark67: folds > > Carvin2704: folds > > chandlerX:....
> > Chandler
> Is this supposed to be a tough spot? Instashove all day. Requires no > thought at all.
Didn't seem like much of a decision at the time, which is why I'm taking a reality check and polling the audience. I may phone a friend next.
Chandler
______________________________________________________________________ * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
OK, I guess the general consensus is to jam. I do. I get called by K2... suited. Guy turns a K, but that doesn't bring about this post. I'm getting my money in good and having my ass handed to me by idiots on a regular basis and it isn't worth pointing out any particular instance anymore. ICM analysis recommends check here. It doesn't recommend what to do when I'm scratching my head after the flop. It just says jamming here is negative expectation. For me to make this shove positive expectation and correct I have to adjust this guys range to opening top 60% of hands and calling to my shove only the top 33%. Open up his calling range a little more and we are back to incorrect again... so I'm just wondering. WTF?
1) Assuming I want to go with the ICM, some of these plays are not exactly intuitive. I may analyze and analyze and get a feel for it or maybe there are some sites that let you leave it running. The perspective of applying ICM to real games.
2) And jamming here seems so basic and yet I'm coming up with the play as incorrect. Am I missing something?
"chandler" <a5a7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote: >OK, I guess the general consensus is to jam. I do. I get called by K2... > suited. Guy turns a K, but that doesn't bring about this post. I'm >getting my money in good and having my ass handed to me by idiots on a >regular basis and it isn't worth pointing out any particular instance >anymore. ICM analysis recommends check here. It doesn't recommend what >to do when I'm scratching my head after the flop. It just says jamming >here is negative expectation. For me to make this shove positive >expectation and correct I have to adjust this guys range to opening top >60% of hands and calling to my shove only the top 33%. Open up his >calling range a little more and we are back to incorrect again... so I'm >just wondering. WTF?
>1) Assuming I want to go with the ICM, some of these plays are not exactly >intuitive. I may analyze and analyze and get a feel for it or maybe there >are some sites that let you leave it running. The perspective of applying >ICM to real games.
>2) And jamming here seems so basic and yet I'm coming up with the play as >incorrect. Am I missing something?
In article <179jp59th5697vi6enkdmqsbbv87l5s...@4ax.com>,
foldem <pe...@scfrey.com> wrote: >Is this ICM thingie designed for cash games?
No. Duh. ICM is all about tournament equities. In cash games, chips have 100% linear values.
-Patti -- Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA | pattib~pattib.org | All religions are equally http://www.pattib.org/ | ludicrous, and should be ridiculed http://stopshootingauto.com | as often as possible. C. Bond
|
