What most players get wrong about laddering
Focussing on the next pay jump only is the wrong way to think about ICM, says Dara O'Kearney.
When people first learn about ICM they sometimes over adjust and it shackles them into being too tight. This is not helped by the fact that they fundamentally think that ICM and 'laddering' is the same thing.
Laddering is when you play tight to get to the next pay jump (ie. the next step on the ladder).
This is obviously a good strategy when a short-stacked player is all-in and you have a marginal hand. Folding could literally make you money if they bust and you stayed out of their way.
Players put way too much emphasis on the 'next pay jump'. The inevitable problem with that is if you constantly sit out to make a pay jump, you will eventually blind out.
Let's look at an example, below is a final table, the chips in play, and what each player could win if they maintained their position:
| Player | Chips | Potential Prize |
|---|---|---|
| Player 1 | 500,000 | $10,000 |
| Player 2 | 300,000 | $7,500 |
| Player 3 | 200,000 | $5,800 |
| Player 4 | 150,000 | $4,000 |
| Player 5 | 40,000 | $2,800 |
If Player 5 went all-in and Player 1 isolated them by shoving, it would be correct for Player 2 to avoid getting involved with a marginal hand. They could 'ladder' to the $4,000 payout, guaranteeing an extra $1,200 for doing nothing.
However, Player 2 should not just be thinking about that one pay jump. They should be thinking about all the potential finishing positions they could end up in.
Thankfully ICM calculations show us just that. Below is the percentage chance each player has of finishing in every position:
| Player | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Player 1 | 42.0% | 30.2% | 18.4% | 8.1% | 1.3% |
| Player 2 | 25.2% | 27.9% | 25.3% | 17.3% | 4.3% |
| Player 3 | 16.8% | 20.9% | 26.2% | 26.8% | 9.3% |
| Player 4 | 12.6% | 16.4% | 22.6% | 33.5% | 14.9% |
| Player 5 | 3.4% | 4.7% | 7.4% | 14.4% | 70.1% |
Player 2 should avoid calling not just to secure 4th. They would also be jeopardising the 25.2% of the time they win, the 27.9% of the time they come 2nd and the 25.3% of the time they come 3rd. They bag a top 3 finish 78.4% of the time and that is also a factor in whether they should take on the big stack early.
It's not as clear cut for Player 4, however, who is second lowest in chips. Folding here all but guarantees them their 4th place prize. Right now they win 12.6% of the time, come 2nd 16.4% of the time and come third 22.6% of the time. Player 4 bags a top 3 finish 51.6% of the time, meaning they finish 4th or 5th almost half the time.
Most players assume laddering is more important for Player 4. I might argue that it's more in Player 4's interest to take a risk here than it is for Player 2. Player 4 is risking much less in equity terms than Player 2 is.
On a money bubble, the shortest stacks have the most ICM pressure, because all their equity is tied up in the min cash. At a final table, however, the shorter stacks have much more incentive to take risks, because they are risking less equity than the medium stacks.
You can get more great strategy advice via Dara's free strategy newsletter.
