Is there an argument for meta-folding?

[Moskvich]

I fold in spots like this fairly often, and think I might well fold here, depending on the dynamics of the table. If the bigger stacks are playing fairly passively and waiting for someone to bust then I'll probably shove, as I'll worry that if I give the shorty a walk he'll then be able to pick up another set of blinds next hand, and then I'll be falling off the pace.

I kind of know when I do fold that it's probably a mistake. But at the same time, as Tank says, people start to open up their calling ranges whether or not they're really aware of what they're doing and why. They often seem to do it pretty dramatically as well, almost deciding that they're going to call with anything half decent next time you shove. I think this can happen especially if they're not picking up their share of blinds from other positions. I've had a few people in recent days snap call shoves in spots like this with stuff like J8 and Q7 (top 35-40%?), where obviously they've suddenly opened up their calling range to the extent that I can't actually be shoving junk any more. I guess you have to be aware of if and when they're about to go into panic mode and adjust accordingly.

Obviously it's pretty hard to estimate what the 'value' of a fold is here, but I'd say it's definitely one of those things that ICM doesn't take account of, and I suspect it's enough to make a shove that's breakeven or slightly +EV on a pure ICM basis into a shove that actually loses you money. So if in doubt, as in close situations like the 94o, I would guess there's nothing wrong with making the fold and giving everyone another couple of hands to get involved and make a mistake. (Particularly if you think you can shove into the medium stack next hand, when your raise will probably get more respect.)

I dunno, I always get a bit confused thinking about these spots, where ICM and common-sense strategy can appear to conflict. This is probably partly because I don't have that fantastic a grasp of ICM, but also I suppose because while ICM can provide you with an inexploitable strategy, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best possible strategy. Am I right in thinking that?

Good question anyway.

[Longy]

I snap shove this, even though you have been beating up his blind. Given he is semi comptent he will still fold enough to shove it.

Yes you have to take into account that your constant shoving will change his calling range but you will often find in this spot that you never end up having to open shove his bb again. Therefore the whole "meta game" is wasted, just estimate a range and if it is +ev shove it.

I fold in spots like this fairly often, and think I might well fold here, depending on the dynamics of the table. If the bigger stacks are playing fairly passively and waiting for someone to bust then I'll probably shove, as I'll worry that if I give the shorty a walk he'll then be able to pick up another set of blinds next hand, and then I'll be falling off the pace.

I kind of know when I do fold that it's probably a mistake. But at the same time, as Tank says, people start to open up their calling ranges whether or not they're really aware of what they're doing and why. They often seem to do it pretty dramatically as well, almost deciding that they're going to call with anything half decent next time you shove. I think this can happen especially if they're not picking up their share of blinds from other positions. I've had a few people in recent days snap call shoves in spots like this with stuff like J8 and Q7 (top 35-40%?), where obviously they've suddenly opened up their calling range to the extent that I can't actually be shoving junk any more. I guess you have to be aware of if and when they're about to go into panic mode and adjust accordingly.

Obviously it's pretty hard to estimate what the 'value' of a fold is here, but I'd say it's definitely one of those things that ICM doesn't take account of, and I suspect it's enough to make a shove that's breakeven or slightly +EV on a pure ICM basis into a shove that actually loses you money. So if in doubt, as in close situations like the 94o, I would guess there's nothing wrong with making the fold and giving everyone another couple of hands to get involved and make a mistake. (Particularly if you think you can shove into the medium stack next hand, when your raise will probably get more respect.)

I dunno, I always get a bit confused thinking about these spots, where ICM and common-sense strategy can appear to conflict. This is probably partly because I don't have that fantastic a grasp of ICM, but also I suppose because while ICM can provide you with an inexploitable strategy, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best possible strategy. Am I right in thinking that?

Good question anyway.

ICM is simply a mathematical model, which you give ranges to and it does the maths. Get his range wrong that is a poker mistake, not the models mistake. 

[Moskvich]

ICM is simply a mathematical model, which you give ranges to and it does the maths. Get his range wrong that is a poker mistake, not the models mistake.

Yeah I realise that - I guess what I was trying to say (kind of in line with the point of the thread) was that doing a standard ICM calc for that one hand doesn't necessarily give you the best strategy... For example, it could be the case that even though an ICM calc says shoving this hand is +EV, you'd be better off folding the 94o this hand and shoving next hand, as the fact that you've just folded your SB could tighten up the table's calling ranges against you, and maybe the new BB will be less likely to call anyway. Obviously yes, you could work out the EV of this strategy using ICM, just in more convoluted form.