preflop sims

Aa lololololol

24s

average he said lol ; i say JTs QTs maybe 45s 56s certainly not KJo so in certain spots KJo 9Ts and 9x suited overfold. thanks for this video man

7 2 off

Good question... Yeah, I image we bluff and call less

If they call more then how can you be good by bluffing more? I think the answer is to sit back more often. You gain EV by staying away from action and letting others duke it out. Value bet thinner than ICM Yea, calling less also makes sense but that’s cause people bluff even less than chip EV.

@@samuraijack1371 thats what i said. You could have just said "yes"

The adaptation is similar to cash games: When everybody in the pool is a loose-passive fish , you win by being a nit.

@@Badbentham But here it is about being out of tourney. In cash you can always rebuy and play. So in tourney youre playing tight because youre waiting for others to get busted.

That was my reading of it. People struggle to find bluffs at the best of times. This is basically the nail in the coffin of the bluff catcher.

i have same exact thoughts about that, and i think we call them at less freq than 10%. How often exactly? Idk with the best hands i guess

@@velmrok1660 probably just value catchers not even bluff catchers.

@@karlmason7985 That is so interesting, we don't need to think that much about our own range, cause in spots like pure bluff catchers, people is so often going to bluff at too low frequency, making it not worth it to bluff catch. this 500% shove is not really that common, It's more often I meet 33-80% pot bets, with some stack remaining behind, I'm not bust, but it will put me in danger zone for the future.

1 - 57% = 43%

@@GTOWizard Yeah I dont get it? Wouldn't 1 - 57 be 56? :d

Postflop overall smaller

In general the solver sizes down unless range mechanics or very high risk premiums incentivize extreme equity denial.

I feel like it depends on who covers who

Smaller. There is a card in the video that says just that.

The purpose of this experiment is to see how well ICM predicts placement probabilities when players are playing chip EV (unaware of ICM). Details of the experiment are outlined in the article, under experiment #5 blog.gtowizard.com/when-does-icm-become-significant-in-mtts/#example5 a) The reason we use two player groups, with half and full stacks, is because if everyone had the same starting stack then everyone would have equal tournament equity and be equally likely to place in each position. So we split it into two player groups, one with half-stack and one with full-stacks, with the big blind set dynamically to 1/7 of the average stack. b) ICM is a formula that predicts how often each stack will place 1st, 2nd, 3rd and so on. We wanted to see if it accurately predicted placements for each player group, despite the fact that no player in the tournament was aware of ICM. To answer you question about losing money - cEV loses money when other players are playing a better (ICM) strategy. In this case, EVERYONE is playing cEV, so no one has the edge.

Thats it gto is expensive and only 4 Pros who earn Fulltime Money with that maybe good but on Low Micro we Talk about 1 to 10,20 sometimes 50 $ Tourneys not so good, yesterday i fold A3s KJs and KQo all in Blind Position and everytime 2 All ins before me iff i had call all 3 i have won every Hand cause of Variance but also cause they go AI with 37bs K9 other time 33 and A6o and i had 1 or 2 Bountys more and get to FT 4 sure than gets 22 it depends so often kn 1 2 Tricky decisions and what Bs Hand Opponent gos AI when i know what they Push Off course i had call 3 Times from B Position theire it depends much more than by Pros how and what your opponent Range is and what Middle or Bs hands he Push!! Im more Praxis Guy and sometimes Gto is good, 4 me the whole Thing is too expensive off course by my Limits and too complicated but some Things are good but only 4 Pros Highstack Area !!

Yes you're correct, thanks for pointing that out!