As many of you are aware, I am a huge fan of the game show Jeopardy, in addition to being a former champion. The last time there was a major press push for Jeopardy was when they held their Ultimate Tournament of Champions, and before that was the 74-game winning streak of Ken Jennings. The call is being made again for everyone to watch on Friday night for a special, historic moment.
In poker, the classic joke is that the answer to any question you may ask is “it depends”. While it may seem silly at first glance, there is much truth to that statement. Nothing in poker is an absolute, and the ICM is no exception to this, as we've covered in the last article in the series.
In the first article of this series entitled The Independent Chip Model – An Introduction, we investigated the roots of the Independent Chip Model (ICM), and we also explored an example of when ICM contradicts a decision justified by the conventional method of calculating pot odds. Now, let's expand on this idea further, and evaluate a situation with four players remaining.
I'm certain many people have read through the online forums on occasion, and have seen a glimpse of something referred to as ICM. Upon reading further into a jumble of decimal numbers, people typically end up doing one of two things: scroll to the bottom to find the actual decision decided through ICM in plain English, or give up altogether, and assume that since there was so much heavy math involved, it wasn't of too much use at the table.
So, upon my nightly perusal of the ITH Forums, a post by Mecil caught my eye. I'm always a sucker for aptitude tests, as long as they're not general IQ tests - I'll rant about them shortly. I've seen my fair share of poker aptitude tests, and most of them fall well short of interesting, but this sets the bar fairly high.
Living in South Florida, the only live poker near me is at the Hard Rock Casino. The problem with this is the State of Florida. There's a law in the books that limits bets to $2, and 3 raises are allowed per betting round. Of course, the casinos get around this by offering SnGs with anywhere from 20% to 40% rake. Right.
It's February Sweeps Month in the US, which means we get random celebrities popping up everywhere, sitcoms and dramas try major plot twists, and game shows will try twisting formats and adding money. 1 vs 100 tried out a special show, called Last Man Standing, in which 101 players played against each other, no helps allowed. The last man/woman standing wins $250,000.
The real fun in cribbage comes along on in the end game on 4th street. We had a small crowd in my grass roots club tonight due to the ACC Open going on this weekend in Reno, but I still have a couple of interesting hand situations that came up in end games. End games are quite important too - in many situations, picking up a few spread points or even better, squeaking out a small win when you should have lost will correspond to more money finishes.
As beginners, one of the mantras we always say when playing backgammon is "When in doubt, hit!" For the most part, this can be very solid advice, but there are circumstances in which hitting can be very dangerous. One of the reoccurring situations happens to be with the ace point. Very often, it may seem that a split backgame with a lone checker on the ace point looks like an easy hit, but looks can be deceiving.
So, I finally made it to 2005 and turned this into a blog/information page. This site has been looking a bit rough, and the colours could use a bit of updating as well. For all of you that substitute acid with the ICM calculator, I'm sorry, you'll have to go find a new way to experience the 1970s again. I'm sure there are some questions about what is going to change, and what's going to stay the same, and simply put - nothing is going to be removed, but I'm actually going to add some content.