Future Game Simulation (2): Understanding the crucial driving factors

    • gaaish
      Joined: 23.02.2010 Posts: 1,258
      Imagine you are on the bubble of a 9-man SNG and face the following situation:

      According to the ICM you should fold here. Taking the risk of busting on the bubble is too expensive, thus if you expect your opponents to be calling with the ICM-based Nash ranges, your potential push would be -$EV.

      On the other hand, you see that you’re on the edge of blinding out and you feel that you should change the dynamics in order to stay alive. Therefore, you ask yourself the following questions:

      --> What will my future situation look like if I manage to steal here and become the chip leader?
      --> Should I risk a bit more in this spot in order to risk less in future hands?
      --> How much does it actually cost to pay the blinds in the next hands?
      --> Where is the border of losing the fold equity?

      Losing fold equity, applying pressure and abusing the bubble are problems that require more than just the knowledge of the ICM in order to be fully understood.

      In this lesson you will learn about the key factors that drive the difference between results produced by ICM and FGS, which will help you to understand both of them and adjust your ICM-trained intuition in-game when performing detailed calculations is impossible.

      What's your decision?

      Unsure? We have the answer for you!

      NEW: Future Game Simulation (2): Understanding the crucial driving factors
  • 2 replies
    • Scaletta
      Joined: 24.03.2011 Posts: 203
      Great article, though this is something that I've basically learned by myself just by playing in the past few months. There's a mistake in the quiz though, I answered question 4 correctly and it said I got 0 points for it :) So you guys might want to fix that.
    • gaaish
      Joined: 23.02.2010 Posts: 1,258
      Hi Scaletta!

      I'm glad you like the new content. When it comes to the mistake - you're totally right, there is a bug, we'll take care of that, thanks for pointing that out! :)