$25k SCOOP Final Table: Final 5
Posted by Apoth
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...
really enjoyed this series but this video is far too short imo. 33 minutes seems like the video has barely begun and it's over. I can understand if the video is theoretical content that took a ton of time to prepare but doing a voiceover on an FT with cards up doesn't seem too time consuming.
regardless, the quality of your analysis is never in doubt. looking forward to the next part!
Yea it was just a weird spot tbh. There was too much video to make a single part (would have been over an hour and I'm under the impression people are not fond of vids that long) so I had to try to split it into two, making both a bit short. It's a bit unfortunate but neither option was great.
yeah that's fair enough. I watch basically every video at 1.25x speed (some at 1.5x) and I am under the impression that a lot of other viewers do too. so an hour long video is probably closer to the 45-50 minute mark for most people.
even then, I don't mind longer videos :P anything up to an hour is fine imo.
Why would people want shorter videos? They are paying for it. If they want to they could just take a break after 30 min. That being said, Great video. More pls :p
TheLobster agreed. stupid decision whoever made that one.
Great analysis as always! Keep up!
Very nice video and series, thanks
Didnt watch the video yet, but the description seems to be misleading. Why would the "ICM implications ramp up" with less players left. Usually at FTs ICM is most important when the FT is starting and payout jumps are shallow, not towards the end when they become steep.
What you describe is a 9man sat with 2 places paid. Obviously there would be a huge ICM pressure right from the start. But anyway your example is not really applicable for a standard FT, as even the 9th place payout is not negligable compared to 1st place. Obviously the more top heavy the payout strucure is, the less important ICM becomes at the beginning of the FT.
Btw HU there is no ICM and that does not depend on how payouts are.
$$wise yes, but you do not mean that. What you mean (and everybody else when talking about ICM), are the bubble factors and thus the impact on ranges and these are bigger, the shallower the payout structures are. It is a common misconception that ICM influence is bigger when payout jumps become bigger. The bigger the payout jumps, the closer you play to cEV and vice versa.
Just as in your 9-man sat example you are comparing horses with apples. At the beginning of a tournament there are no payouts. ICM only becomes a major factor in MTT bubbles because there is a huge difference between OOM and ITM, but then again a very small difference between ITM directly after the bubble burst and ITM some places after the bubble burst.
I am not going to spend more time explaining this to you. Just do some ICM content or use HRC/ICMIZER and look how ranges at FTs change if you keep everything the same and just alter the number of players (hint: look at BvB ranges).
You've given me a lot to think about, thanks for the replies--I've deleted my 2 examples as I agree that they both sort of missed the mark in their relevance.
I get what you're saying now--I think. Correct me if I'm wrong--the point you were making is that as payjumps are shallower (and therefore, as there's more other players that can bust before us, and also therefore with less "big money" in immediate view that would incentivize us to simply play cEV), ICM makes $EV and cEV diverge the most.
Then, as payjumps are deeper (and therefore, as there's less other players that can bust before us, and also therefore with "big money" for 1st in closer view incentivizing us to sway more toward cEV with our ranges), ICM makes $EV and cEV diverge less.
Does that sound about right?
This is a factor yes, but what is also highly important is how topheavy the payouts and how flat or steep the payjumps are. The top-heavier, the less important is ICM. The flatter the payjumps, the more important is ICM, as bubble factors become bigger and bigger.
Yep, of course. Thanks for your replies GeeTeeOh.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.