Poker Math - What they don't get

[Kurn]

Couldn't agree more. Mid-late stage SNG play is primarily playing relative stack sizes, not just relative to the blinds, but to each other as well.

I don't use ICM calculators either. I understand the basic concept, and the fine adjustment you need to make the calculator be a +EV tool over a basic conceptual understanding is, IMO, just way too fine to spend the mental energy.

In its simplest form, when deciding when to push/call, I ask myself these two simple questions. Opponent will push/call with Ax, so what is the lower limit of x, and he will push/call with AA-yy, so what is the lower limit of y.

In a basic sense, the unpaired non-ace hands in his range become somewhat irrelevant, because you should rarely open up your range to include a lower value of x because you will not be adding sufficient equity vs KT/QJ type hands to warrant expanding your range when not short or giant stacked.

Also note the above does not include bvb at the bubble since the basic ICM rule of "you cover, you shove" applies and your cards are irrelevant

The math needed to understand the concept is not rocket science.

Unpaired offsuit cards vs unpaired offsuit cards:

Your highest card < than opponent's lowest card: 2:1 dog

Your highest card < than opponent's lowest card > your lowest card: 3:2 dog

Opponet's highest card > Both your cards > opponent's lowest card: 11:9 dog

[Talking Poker]

I think you have a typo here. I've always thought in terms of 70/30 (dominated), 65/35, 60/40, and 55/45 for the most common situations, but same thing, really. It's just easier for me to remember the 5% shift in each situation, and while 2:1 and 3:2 work out in my head nicely, 11:9 does not.

[Kurn]

Your highest card < than opponent's lowest card > your lowest card: 3:2 dog

I'm thinking of you have, say, KJ vs AQ. Your high card is greater than his low card which is greater than your low card.

[Talking Poker]

Greater than : >
Less than : <

[Kurn]

Dyslexia srtikes again!