I Wish I Knew Then What I Know Now: Tournament Theory and ICM

Having just completed our discussion on nearly every poker game spread online or in a casino, now we shall explore tournament poker. Back in the day I didn’t know anything about tournaments. I used them as a device to keep me in front of my computer for extended periods so I could put in more hours playing cash. I thought rebuy tournaments were all about avoiding rebuying during the rebuy period, now I know that rebuying many times is cool. In 2006 I played my first WSOP event. In level four I had 1,200 in chips from a 1,000 starting stack playing 50-100. It folded to me in late position, I made it 400 with pocket eights, one of the blinds put me in, and I wrote in my blog that I was faced with a “tough decision.” I called, sucked out on aces, and years later can look back at how little I knew then.

In cash games, every chip on the table has a static value. They can be removed from the table and redeemed for their face value in currency. Tournaments deny this opportunity, meaning that chips have dynamic value and simply allow the holder to remain in the tournament. More chips mean that a player is more likely to stay in the tournament longer, but chips don’t mean anything until they’re all gone. This theory is called Independent Chip Model (ICM) and it is the crux of the difference between cash games and tournaments.

Put simply, ICM states that each chip you win is worth less than every chip you already have. The inverse is also true with each chip you lose being worth more than the last chip you lost. Therefore math problems and play styles in tournaments differ dramatically from cash games. In cash games, if presented with an opportunity to take Q-Q vs. A-K, the Q-Q will take that opportunity all day long and as many times as possible. However in tournaments it is often advantageous to pass such an opportunity. ICM essentially means that we need to win more often than pot odds dictate because the chips we are winning are worth less than the chips we are risking.

ICM is a very complex and dynamic principle. It is least relevant on the very first hand of the tournament. Doubling up never doubles your chances to win the tournament. ICM is at its most prevalent on the bubble in satellites or double-up sit-n-gos where x players receive an equal prize and everybody else gets nothing. Here’s an example of what not to do:

It was the night before the LAPC main event in 2010. Fourteen players remained in the $1,000 super satellite to the main event. Thirteen players would be awarded seats, 14th-place paid peanuts. They were playing hand for hand, and a player went broke on that table. On this table, our hero is facing a decision for all his chips. He calls the floorman, wanting to know what happens if he calls and loses. If you call and lose, you will split 13th and 14th-place with the gentleman who just went broke, both taking home more than $5,000 cash.

He goes into the tank.

Five seconds elapse when a player across the table, not in the hand, says, “If you fold the hand man, you win the seat!”

Before anybody can object, our hero announces: “My hand is too big, I gotta call,” and he pushes his chips forward. He lost the hand, but probably made the right decision, because if he couldn’t figure out that fold = win, call = maybe win, then there’s no way he’s better than minus 50 percent ROI in a WPT $10,000, even one as yummy as the LAPC.

This gross example of ICMicide is pretty simple to deduce, but things get much more complicated in many multitable tournament situations. Let’s examine the factors that influence the power of ICM:

The bubble is the first major ICM situation encountered in tournaments, being the exact spot where everybody else gets money and the bubble boy doesn’t. Don’t go broke on the bubble. This generates situations that can be exploited and many goofy situations between competent players, but something always went wrong when you bubble. Often bubble situations should be played aggressively, but that’s tough to do with a short stack because those last few chips are precious, which gives us incentive to make it to the bubble with a big stack so we can take advantage of these naturally occurring ICM spots.

The final table bubble is usually the next pay jump that is bigger than the bubble pay jump with every spot between the two usually being smaller than bubble to min-cash. In bigger tournaments these mini-bubbles happen sooner too, with each successive pay jump being huge. In 2011 I made a deep run in the main event finishing 12th, good for over $180,000 more than 13th place. In seven plus years of recorded tournament scores, if I booked one today for $180,000, it would be the third biggest of my career (sick brag obviously). The point is that going broke 13th instead of 12th would have cost me a huge chunk of change, and thus I need to be winning the pot more often when all my chips are at risk in this situation than early in the tournament.

It is also important to note that ICM influence is more drastic in large field tournaments than small ones. If 38 percent of the prize pool is going to first place, then there is more incentive to earn a bigger stack now, meaning that while chips won are worth less than chips already possessed, they are worth more in a top heavy prize pool than a flat structure where say 20 percent is going to first.

Lastly, stacks should be guarded more closely when there is a short player at a pay jump. The bigger the pay jump and/or the shorter the stack, the less willing you should be to go broke. If somebody has just a few chips left, it is usually best to wait them out and move up the pay scale. The same spot with equal stacks minimizes the effect of ICM. Opponents stack sizes deep in tournaments should often dictate the correct line, spanning the full spectrum of lines from the fist-pump snap-fold to the high-five the dealer and windmill-slam your hand face-up call. ♠

Bryan Devonshire has been a professional poker player for nearly a decade. With over $2m in tournament earnings, he also plays high stakes mixed games against the best players in the world. Follow him on Twitter @devopoker.