Personally I am shoving this, and I am feeling good about it. With no antes my Nash chart tells me Q T o is good as a shove all the way up to 19 bb from BTN, so with >6% antes its for sure in the zone.

I am not super excited, as I doubt it is getting called by worse, so I suppose it depends whether you are interested in laddering some or going for the win. There aren’t any super-shorties, so for me, this is a no brainer. 

Then again, the most I have ever won in a tournament is $2k, so hopefully some bigger guns will fire off their thoughts.

I decided to re-pop the thread to the top. Got to get some pro input for one of the TPE legendary members! I think Matt and Dylan are away… hopefully Andrew will see this.

Hey Daniel, just a word of caution there…

I also use SnapShove, and it is excellent, and I have been testing its chip EV output against Holdem Resource Calculator, and it is basically the same, but SnapShove is not an ICM calculator. It is a chip EV calculator.

For high ICM spots such as a FT, you want to be using ICMIZER or HRC to study these spots.

Obviously you cannot use HRC or ICMIZER in-game, whereas SnapShove is a phone app, so I know how handy it is. Some purists may say that we shouldn’t even be using SnapShove in game, but really this would be some kind of nonsense. In essence SnapShove is just a chip EV  Nash shove/call chart incorporated into an app., and no more harmful than that.

Edit: I just re-read your post and I see you mention ICM, my mistake. And yes, ICM dynamics can seriously warp Nash ranges. In fact the thread “Getting Started” in the GTO section has a lot of content about this.

I can’t remember what I was thinking at the time but I thought we were shorter than 20 bigs when I wrote my first post. I only said we can shove up to 19 bigs according to my Nash chart, not that I would be.

I still might be though, because if we min raise we really are opening ourselves up to some ICM abuse, especially if the 2 players behind are good as you say they are.

Certainly NOT a no brainer though as I originally said.

Tbh I have a terrible feeling I thought we had 10 bigs lol, because I remember thinking “this is standard”, What a div I am sometimes… 

Edit: I see Daniel had us at 12.5 bigs, so i am not alone in getting this wrong! I’m not sure why we are all misreading it…it’s a  pretty easy one!

Yeah, I can see why you might want a pro’s input lol.

I think I started the Nash ball rolling by misreading the stack size. However Matt, Nash is still relevant here surely? There is a thread in the GTO section where we were discussing my confusion over the relationship between Nash and ICM. It is actually a really interesting thread, at least it was to me, as it cleared up confusion I had carried for time, and was unable to find the answer to anywhere else. Roberto the CEO of Pokersnowie even messaged me saying how interesting he found it, as there is a lot of Snowie content in the thread. Well in truth he messaged about something else, but he did mention his interest in the thread. Hey! Don’t get your hopes up about the thread…it probably isn’t that interesting! But as I understood the conclusion to the thread, Nash and ICM, far from being mutually exclusive, are actually wholly related. And even if our ranges are 100%, this is still determined by Nash. ICM dynamics distort the Nash ranges.

Then again, maybe I misunderstood the whole kaboodle, but I don’t think so. Andrew draws a pretty clear line under it ultimately.

If you are interested I believe the thread is “Getting Started” in the GTO forum.

But don’t let me derail the thread…I’d be interested in your thoughts though Matt.

Radriguez said:

“This is exactly the difference between Nash and ICM, I’m thinking. I’m not particularly good at either. But spots like this is probably where cash game regs make mistakes. Look at ICM, not Nash here.”

My point is that Nash and ICM are involved together…that Nash and ICM are wholly related, not mutually exclusive. Check out that thread in the GTO section and see if it is not really clearly answered. If I have misunderstood the thrust of the thread, I would love someone to tell me!

You know what? I was driving my wagon up to the Greenford roundabout on the A40 out of London today and I had some kind of face-palming moment…

I realised that ICM calculators such as HRC give Nash solutions in ICM spots.

And I therefore realised that my ideas regarding Nash and ICM are probably pretty pedestrian…

Of COURSE Nash is influenced by ICM. This is why we use ICM calculators! Ahh forgive me people, sometimes I get confused around some obvious stuff!

(btw I think you probably were targeting me directly Andrew lol!).

I’m not sure Radriguez. You’re probably right, perhaps you also weren’t too clear, but Andrew has pulled me on my (lack of) clarity before. I am a well known long term thread-muddying miscreant here at TPE. There is no malice intended…usually it is because I have no idea what the hell I’m even talking about!

Anyway, hopefully P Aire is happy to let this thread go a little…hopefully you got the feedback you wanted.

So we have established the relationship between Nash and ICM.

I understand the concept of a Nash equilibrium applies at a FT.

But if I may put forward a quick scenario to illustrate my confusion: we are on the bubble and a short stack raises and we as a larger stack ICM shove ATC in order to abuse the ICM of the situation, is this 100% ICM-abusing range a Nash equilibrium range, or this shove nothing more than us being a horrid ICM abusing bastard, and unrelated to Nash?

There. I encapsulated my confusion in a neat package!

To be fair, I think this was answered in the GTO forum…but I use this example here to illustrate what I was uncertain about.

Oh btw P-aire I when I said “let the thread go a little”, I wasn’t meaning to shut it down. I was meaning that hopefully you don’t mind if it derails a little. Hope that was clear!