4 handed in a small MTT - bad play here?

I played in a 10+1 on FTP with 49 players and finished 4th. I ran really good, winning coin flips and a couple 40/60s. But 4 handed with a lot of chips, I made this play - which I'm still thinking about.

http://www.pokerhand.org/?2142561

I'm the button. I get a fold and make a blind stealing raise to 6400. The SB pushes all in for 19,860. Immediately, I put the guy on a weakish hand. I had been bullying this player for a while and it felt like he finally wanted to take a stand. But then I start doing the math.

There is 29,280 in the pot after the SB's raise. And it's 13,460 for me to call. I'm getting 2.17 to 1 pot odds. I'm not doing all the calculations at the time of course, but knowing that I'm getting those odds and that I have Q9o, I need to be 32% (2.17 / 3.17) to win to call. As per PokerStove, I have the right odds for any unpaired cards that don't have me dominated. Plus, I could be against 33 or some other crap that donkeys like this play.

So that's what went through my head. Well - more specifically - it was "I'm getting about 2 to 1 - the math says to call here."

So what else could I have done? Fold of course. If I fold, I have about 37,500 and he has about 28,000. What I'm not doing here is the ICM analysis to see how this play affects my equity. Of course, I could also have not raised. I really bullying the table and I felt like the SB and BB were both pretty weak tight. That will take some work. But could I have found a better spot to get much chips in? Especially where I'm the aggressor. Oh well. I need to do some more thinking about this.

my own interpretation of ICM

I re-read Jennifear's article on ICM. If you're concentrating on the math, it seems difficult, but it's basically just what Dan Harrington called "first in vigorish"

When you're on the bubble, push a lot with just about any two cards. Don't call without premium hands. The way she talks about a call that may have positive cEV (positive chip expected value) but not necessarily positive $EV (positive equity expected value) is interesting. It makes you awfully tight in terms of calling when on the bubble. If it ever becomes an all-in fest for all players as this theory prescribes, then you have to loosen your calling requirements. Of course each situation is different and it seems most of the donkeys I play with don't do this.

I found myself at a 12+1 6 handed STT on Stars today and tried it out twice. One worked, one didn't (actually had A9o and got called by KQs and lost). On the other, I never got called.

My basic philosophy has always been - get your money in good, that's all you can do.

Being a knowledgeable player, I know the quandry I'm in when someone pushes in to me and I have A6s. I could be dominated. I could be 55/45. This posting has been a little but of stream of consciousness.

One of the things I have trouble with is the luck factor. I know that when I'm pushing with 92, I'm only going to get called by a better hand. And it kills me and goes against my own theory
(get your money in good) - but I guess that's the thing, it's a +$ev value if not necessarily a +cEV play. But I guess you have to get called for it to be a -cEV play.

I guess I need to adjust my thinking. People who have thought this through more than I have are coming up with this conclusion, so I don't see why I can't change my line of thinking to incorporate it into my game.

what the hell is ICM?

I haven't played a lot lately, but in some reading I've done, I've come across a concept called ICM (The Independent Chip Model). It seems I'm late to the party on this. From the beginning of what I've read, it's about making decisions based on math and position relative to the money. I read through someone named Jennifear's $55 STT which had some interesting plays and thoughts:

http://www.pocketfives.com/0DBF774F-1FC9-4349-825D-9BE7645FCF20.aspx

I want to do some reading on ICM and see if it can help me short handed STT bubble game.

I also want to focus more when playing - my play was not tight today, too many loose plays. I'm better than this.