When is icmizer 3 out, and will the price be the same? I don't know whether to wait for it or get an icmizer 2 sub now.

Let me know of you want anyone to beta test it

Hi buffyslayer1.
With the 2.10 update, we had completely rewritten the whole calculation engine which is now much faster and precise. As part of that update and the process of switching from the old engine, we also had to disable some of the previously "calculatable" complex spots and the spots that you describe became unsupported. Currently, we don't have immediate plans to bring support for these spots back because as our logs estimate they represent less than 0.5% of situations which are reviewed in ICMIZER and adding support for them in the new engine is quite a big task, to say the least.

Hi Stratify

As it always is with software, the release date is not known at this point.
We plan to have it ready in 2018 but it won't likely be before Summer.
Other than that I cannot say much about the release date.

Regarding the pricing: pricing will be announced near the release date.

What I can say now is this: we value our customers and will provide
cost-efficient upgrade options to our subscribers.

I cannot be more specific at this point, but there really is not a single reason to wait for the release.
It is a big update and may take much longer than 6 months and it is impossible to say much about it at this point.

I recommend to purchase ICMIZER 2 now and start improving your strategy and getting better results now.
Once ICMIZER 3 is out it will become easier, but the difference between playing without ICMIZER and with ICMIZER in its current state is much bigger than the potential difference from the benefits ICMIZER 3 will bring.

Hope it helps

Why are you not using https on www.icmizer.com?

Hi mashxx

Moving to HTTPS is planned as high priority and should be done soon.
Note that all payments are already secure since they are handled by FastSpring servers.

I've just recently started using ICMizer. I am on a Macbook Air running OSX 10.11.6. I downloaded Microsoft Silverlight as Icmizer told me too. I tried to paste a hand and it told me it needed permissions to use my clipboard. I gave it the permissions and said not to ask again. Or so I thought.

Either I misclicked or it input it wrong, but it now won't let me paste from my clipboard. When I rightclick on Silverlight preferences, I go through the entire menu and cannot figure out where I am supposed to go to change my clipboard preferences. There doesn't appear to be an option to do this. Do you know where I can find this? Not being able to import hands effectively makes the program useless.

When I try to calculate a spot in which I limp and oppo iso non allin, icmizer gives me an error: too many VPIPs and/or allins. Why does that happen? I used to calculate these spots with no problem using icmizer. Aren't they supported anymore?

Hi mrfunnywobbl.
You can always import hands by the means of Load Hands/Tournament button. You will see the field where you can paste text by using cmd+V and load hands without granting the application access to the clipboard at all.

Regarding the Clipboard access, here is the guide how to grant it:
https://icmizer.zendesk.com/hc/en-us...mber-password-

Let me know if I can help you with anything else.

Hi silvertex

With the recent 2.10 update, we had completely rewritten the whole calculation engine which is now much faster and precise. As part of that update and the process of switching from the old engine, we also had to disable some of the previously "calculatable" complex spots and the spots that you describe became unsupported.

Some situations are more difficult to support than the other, and we do have plans to add support for some situations with limps to the new engine in the upcoming months.

This is not a very complex spot, this is rather a basic spot which comes up very often in spin&gos. You've just lost a customer.

Hi, well I've checked the scenario where opponent isolates as allin and it is supported



If he isolates as non-ai raise it is currently not supported.
However, often there is little practical difference if the iso size is not all-in because he commits to the push.
If he min-raises as isolation move with fold equity then yes, this type of spot is not supported currently, and it is complex.
I am sorry to hear that this spot is so important for you, but unfortunately, sometimes when we are moving forward I have to make decisions where some of the previously available features become unsupported as part of the update. It is always hard, but necessary.
Like I said above, the unsupported spots represent less than 0.5% of previously supported spots and I believe it is a reasonable compromise,
however of course for some of our customers support of precisely these spots could be critical.

You will be losing another subscriber. Just wanted to analyze a spot facing a 5bet shove facing QQ at a FT, and see what would be breakeven range for the shover to call, and not supported anymore. Too many VPIPS. Bringing up 0.5% is silly. These are often going to be highest equity spots so equating a search like that with 6 big shove in cutoff is silly.

It seems that I am unable to calculate even most common spots, either by losing accuracy by "locked nodes" or I am not just allowed to calculate due to "too many VPIPs" bull****.
I can't calculate 4Bet/5Bet spots, 3Bet squeezes over 2 or more callers, shoves over limps etc...

And if this BASIC functions aren't available because it is "too complex" than maybe there is no point in providing software for poker calculations in 2018, because I don's see anyone who wants to be better in the game using it anyway.

Hi CorrectSide

You mention couple of changes that we've made last year
1) Locks - locked ranges are the result of the correct implementation of the calculations with raisers. While before the 2.9 update locks werent shown, the calculations were flawed in slightly different way. The key problem here is that we can only take into account 3 players all-in. We cannot handle 4 way split situations and after 3 players are "all-in" everyone else auto folds. That's how preflop Nash calculators work currently. 4-way all-in support is too hard computationally. We could add it potentially, but it would raise the price to a point where we wouldn't find any customers to make it a reasonable investment.
2) 4bet/5bet spots—I believe that these will be added at some point later this year. These spots are not very special.
3 bet squeezes over 2 or more callers—Squeezes over 2 limpers are supported. Squeezes over 3 callers? These cannot be handled correctly and I don't think that we ever supported those, or did we? Like I say, we have a limit for 3 players all-in. If there are 3 callers already, 4th squeezer will be forcing auto fold for the 3rd caller which isn't practical in terms of potential results.
shoves over multiple limpers—aren't basic spots because we cannot predict the EV of the important potential outcome - BB checks and all limpers and BB see the flop. So support for multiple limpers involves some big and not very useful approximations.

Sorry, I meant squeezes over 2 raisers, not limpers there.

Any plans to add support for card removal resulting from players before us folding? This changes shortstack ranges a lot and ICMIZER, as it is now, is suggesting a lot of -EV strategies.

Hi. Currently, there are no such short terms plans. It is not a part of our planned feature set for ICMIZER 3.
Calculations which take these folds into account will take Significantly longer time and for a huge percentage of situations, the calculation time will be outside of any reasonable constraints like seconds or minutes.
However, we are aware of this and are considering our future roadmap options beyond the release of ICMIZER 3.

Hey Q, I finally came up with the money to buy ICMizer Thanks for the fun product (and hopefully soon to be valuable product when my practice pays off).

Can you please tell me in this example why Q6s might have a positive icm diff while q7s has a negative diff. I know it's a small difference but am curious why it might work out that way.

http://www.icmpoker.com/icmizer/#BMgWCc

Hi, Memphaustralian

Congrats! It should be very valuable for your game if you spend time in it

Regarding your situation, this is a typical type of question.
The hand strength is not an absolute thing, its a relative thing and it depends on situation.
Q7s is better than Q6s vs random hand HU.
In this situation, we got a complex calling range/probability pattern.
If Q6 fares better than Q7 it usually means that 6 helps us make some straights and 7 doesn't because all tight calling ranges start with 8+ there which block our straight chances.
You can also check out this vid where I demonstrate even a more curious situation:
https://youtu.be/kzYl3z8rMlw

When I try to calculate Nash Equilibrium for open raise I am unable to change this range.
Why I can't create my own opening range and then calculate Nash Equilibrium for that range?

Hello ICMIzer,

Do you have a 4way allin calculation function? Or is it planned to be introduced any time soon?

Thanks!

Hi. You can change the ranges after making Nash equilibrium and calculate the proper hero response range. ICMIZER currently doesn't allow to lock certain ranges as part of Nash equilibrium calculation. This feature is on our list and is scheduled for 2018.

Hi haagel
No, we don't have such plans for any near time releases.

Hi there,

not sure what I am doing wrong, but I'm trying to work on 3b/4b shove spots, and the program is giving me the same solution for CEV as for $ev? I can't understand how this can be right? Thanks

Rob


https://gyazo.com/6c29766661dd5ea335b048d03f3ecbbf (CEV)
https://gyazo.com/8bb4f6171dd6d5863de811f6de31423e ($EV)

Hi Rob

This is an interesting spot. I've reviewed it and it is just a coincidence that these ranges are equal. If you change some ranges or FGS depth you will see that the ranges will become different.
Thing is that the resulting range contains very strong hands and such tight ranges can be quite stable even when you change situation circumstances. It would be harder to simulate a similarity like this if the hero range was wider.
You can see this if you increase the width of HIJ push range to say 17% or 20%+, ranges will become slightly different.