# ICM Out! Better Tournament Strategy from Computed Continuations, vs. Solvers and LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.09586 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.09586/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 14 of its 38 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 10 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Qwen Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.16609/) (2023)
- [DeepStack: Expert-Level Artificial Intelligence in No-Limit Poker](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1701.01724/) (2017)
- [Suspicion-Agent: Playing Imperfect Information Games with Theory of Mind Aware GPT-4](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.17277/) (2023)
- [Are ChatGPT and GPT-4 Good Poker Players? -- A Pre-Flop Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.12466/) (2023)
- [PokerGPT: An End-to-End Lightweight Solver for Multi-Player Texas Hold'em via Large Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06781/) (2024)
- [RL-CFR: Improving Action Abstraction for Imperfect Information Extensive-Form Games with Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04344/) (2024)
- [Effective, Efficient, and General Information Abstraction for Imperfect-Information Extensive-Form Games](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.10900/) (2026)
- [Real-Time Parallel Counterfactual Regret Minimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.19928/) (2026)
- [Correlated Chance Sampling for Monte Carlo Counterfactual Regret Minimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.27035/) (2026)
- [PokerSkill: LLMs Can Play Expert-Level Poker without Training or Solvers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.30094/) (2026)
- [Agents That Certify Their Own Exploits: Confidence-Scheduled Restricted Responses for Safe Opponent Exploitation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.28520/) (2026)
- [Empirical Validation of the Independent Chip Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.00180/) (2025)
- [AV-AIVAT: 74x Cheaper Agent Evaluation with Certified Anytime-Valid Stopping in Imperfect-Information Games](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.06362/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Abstraction Agent](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.04303/) (2026)
- [GPU-CFR: 80x Faster Counterfactual Regret Minimization by Compiling the Game to Static Dataflow and CUDA Graph Replay](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.11923/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The Independent Chip Model (ICM) converts tournament chips into reference prize equity, and policies are routinely constructed against those values. Because ICM reads only stack sizes, it omits action order, blind obligations, and seat rotation, and it does not price the elimination pressure a big stack puts on the short stacks it can bust. Those omissions can alter the successor-state contrasts that determine a move. We introduce Strategic-Continuation Optimization (SCO), a policy-construction method that enumerates current-hand outcomes, maps them to successor states, prices those states with continuation values computed from the finite tournament model, and optimizes and freezes the resulting current-hand policy. The fixed-ICM comparison policy changes one thing only: the same optimizer solves the same game with successor states priced by analytic ICM, so the two policies differ only through that pricing. We evaluate the resulting policies in a three-player jam/fold tournament with a 1M prize pool. Relative to the frozen strategic-continuation benchmark, analytic ICM has 9,036 mean absolute value error across all 2,838 state--seat entries. That value error rewrites the ranges it prices: measured against each decision point's own fixed-ICM jam range, SCO moves the jam frequency by an average of 14.08%. To price those different moves, we compare all 946 states and three policy owners while changing only the focal policy and holding both opponents and the continuation evaluator fixed. The policy produced by SCO earns 214.33 more prize equity per hand on average and is favored in 2,433 of 2,838 matched units. The ordering survives replacing the solver-built opponent with two LLMs and with a family of non-modeling threshold players. This value-to-policy-to-cost chain shows directly when ICM becomes an inadequate objective for tournament strategy construction.