$162 6-Max Final Table Review
Posted by Sam Greenwood
Video Player is loading.
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Resume Video
Start from Beginning
Watch Video
10
Loading 14 Comments...
thanks Sam! Hallellujiah you are back :) just watch the first minutes of the video. I think I will need to study it in deep details. just a comment from what you said at the beginning of the video about the difference between final table and previous stages before reaching the final table: you said that before it is very standard stategy and almost the same strategy and similar play. so what I would like to see it is your approach of the tournament in general, and especially when it comes to the money prize ladder where sometimes stacks are tricky to manage especially around 20 to 35bb that personnally I don't find it is too standard . may be you can make a review of this 162 6 max you played or another one and show us what is your thought process when you just entry to the money and how you get to the money especially when you are in the average stack or shallower stack. would be interesting to launch the recorder and make a review of middle stages to the final table. thanks.
hello Sam !
I didnt understand what is the difference between 4 icm models, i don't understand how it can be multiple equilibrium answear to one problem
Thanks ;)
Different ICM models value different chipstacks differently.
If starting stacks = 3k
Chip EV would say 6k = 2x V(3k stack)
One ICM might say 6k = 1.9x V(3k stack)
etc.
There are different equilibria because each model views that value of each outcome slightly differently.
There is only one ICM and that is malmuth-harville.
Proportional Chip Count -- award the lowest prize to everyone still active, divide the remaining pool proportional to chipstacks. This method overvalues high stacks. In extreme cases, it values top stack as worth more than the #1 prize.
Landrum Burns -- divide 1st among the players according to chipstack, then divide remaining prizes equally. This one systematically undervalues big stacks, which should expect to win 2nd prize more often than 3rd.
taken together, those methods generate a rough-and-ready upper and lower bound.
Malmuth-Harville -- divide 1st among the players according to chipstack, then divide 2nd by summing the cases where another player won 1st (multiplied by that probability) and the 2nd place prize divided according to remaining stacks... and so on for all prizes remaining. If I understand correctly, this is the ICM formula. (can you work it both directions -- notionally awarding the lowest prize first?)
Malmuth-Weitzman -- is similar except that as you notionally work from the lowest prize (figure chance of a player busting next), and divide those chips equally among the remaining players. The probability of a player busting out next is inversely proportional to his stack size. This method is "probably near the edge of some players' ability to calculate at the table" and seems to be favored as most accurate.
Nice video! Always enjoying the content of your videos!
Wanted to point out that you made a minor mistake in the beginning where your showing the impact of ICM to the different stacks with HoldemResources. You have the the SB and BB mixed up and the ante set at 2k instead of 2,5k. I know this only make very minor changes in the ranges, and the point your making is still valid - just wanted to point it out :)
Hi Sam,
Really like your approach to tournament poker, and I think you bring some great creativity to your videos, mixing in a good use of tools along with the replayer. It's very refreshing to see someone going beyond the norm and outside the box to give us viewers great value. Big thanks for that!
About the J6o defend. I'm very curious about how to approach these sorts of situations (I personally play much too tight out of the blinds when facing wide opening ranges). I understand that with antes being large these days and open raises being very small we are getting great odds.
If I am getting 4:1 preflop, If I knew i were going to see all 5 cards, I think it would make sense to defend any 2 cards. But how do I account for the fact that I only get to see 60% of the hand for my preflop investment? Also do you factor in hot and cold equity vs flopability when choosing which hands with which to defend, or do you take a more in the moment approach rather than using pre constructed ranges.
Is it a matter of taking those odds, and then continuing on above average boards for the hands we choose to defend, whilst releasing on the below average boards?
Thanks again for the great video Sam, I'm going to go ahead and check out part 2 now. Best of luck in the WCOOP challenge events this weekend, hope you can score another big final table!
@33.29 are you snapping if he 3bt jams his jj? Since his stack off range is weaker in that sinario
Ya i was planning on 3b/calling to exploit him.
Sorry i think you missunderstood. If gkapp 3bet jams instead clicking it back vs utg i assumes your calling? What would be your range for this spot. 99+ aqo+? Thanks :-)
@daniel, as he said in the video, theoretically if utg opens and gkapp shoves, it's a fold with TT (because of their tight ranges due to ICM), but now since he didn't and also made an ICM error and tried to induce with JJ, Sam might have some perceived fold equity. He also views gkapp as someone who could potentially be 3b a little bit too often. Totally depending on how you view your opponent in this spot. Since TT is close i think 99 might still be be a fold. And yes he would have called with TT if gkapp would have shoved in this scenario. Great video btw!
at 43 min, when co raises to 50k and btn makes it 106k, u say its prob better to jam in general tho it allows him to get away if sb or bb cold 4b, but doesn't making it this size also make it is so btn can leverage a smaller stack (co pretty much has to jam or fold) and btn just risk 106k to win about 100k. and it also encourages possibly some lighter shoves for when btn has stronger hands? couldn't he develop some 3b/fold strat with like a9o type hands that he wouldn't be able to if he just straight up shoved ( pretty much making it known he's got AQ+ 99+?)
I go over this concept very in depth in the video On Not Splitting Your Ranges, however I will say the CO doesn't have to jam or fold here. Calling is a very reasonable option with a lot of hands.
watched the video. great vid, u have very solid logic and reasoning. i definitely agree with most of what was said, i just think that adding in TT+, AKs/AQs might be better than QQ+ cuz it allows more bluffs and it does better versus hands that we induce (tt,jj dominate lots of small pairs, and aks/aqs dominate lots of ax and do a little better versus pairs). i do get tho how this ruins our jam range, but as sauce points out in comments, ppl may not implement MES quickly enuf for it to hurt us. .. just curious u still agree about a8o-ato as good 3b bluffs? (i like them)
also, how would you change your ranges if you were 30-35bb deep? then it seems we can bluff more (and put pressure on wider range) and balance is easier as we don't have a jamming range. we can size it sorta large so he incentivized to jam or fold. if he flats a lot, we obv need different ranges than if we expect him to play jam or fold game.
One thing the ICM in holdem resources doesn't take into account is your edge in the game. If you think you have a big edge, I'm assuming it may sometimes be worth passing on some spots where ICM dictates a call.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.