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.