So in MTTs, +cEV calls =/= +$EV calls. Very often, slightly +cEV calls are -$EV since tournament survival is key, even in early stage. In ICM spots (FTs or bubble), this effect is even more significant when many of our +cEV calls become -$EV. Like there are some more extreme spots that we need 33.3% equity cEV wise to call off profitably, but with ICM we may need 50% or something.
So lets say we are playing against someone who play a balanced strategy, vs a pot sized shove, it is very likely we would be folding top even top 40% of our range (cEV wise we have to defend around 50% of range, varies between different boards and different range distribution obviously, MDF =/= actual GTO defending frequency). Let’s say on some boards there are limited blocker effects, it is hard to pick superior bluff catchers. The EV of bluff catching x hand and y hand is the same (or in mathematical terms the EV of bluff catching 70% percentile hand is very similar to bluff catching 30% percentile hand). If we play strict ICM we may have to fold 70% of our range and our opponent can print monies, and perhaps switch to a more exploitative strategy (overbluffing, it is hard for us to do much about it though) if similar situations come up again. I want to ask a few questions:
(a) Is there any GTO solvers that deal with tough ICM spots? How does ICM discount our optimal defending frequency comparing to non ICM situations? Should we make some slightly -$EV (but +cEV) call downs at low frequency (like calling with 70% percentile of our range but fold 60% percentile even tho EV of calling both combos is same) theoretically and in practice?
(b) Is it possible to solve how many bluff combos relative to value combos (value to bluff ratio) is villain allowed to have vs GTO defending ranges in ICM spots?
(c) How to deal with those situations? Or any ways to avoid those situations by playing differently on earlier streets?