Hi.
Not sure what do you mean here, "spazzed"?

Yes, there's no shove and call ranges there, just weirdly what button should call?? Whatever it is, it isn't clear.

Well, it is a tricky spot, so it can be a little harder to interpret.

BB is auto all-in, so he has push range locked at 100%.
Then BTN pushed and acted second, so in ICMIZER terms he is the caller (range marked as C).
Then it is your act to overcall (O) as SB (O is a short name for 3rd all-in).
If you click Calculate Nash you will see both ranges calculated and it should immediately make sense.

Hi, quick feature idea for future release, sorry if it's been suggested but it's a big thread. Seems like something that would be easy to implement given what you can already do:

I would love to see sort of a "reverse lookup" feature. For instance, if I want to see how small my stack needs to be in a certain spot to push/call any two cards, I could input...let's call it an "inquiry range" (any two in this case, but potentially any range), and opponents/opponent stack sizes, and then have ICMizer return the largest stack size for me at which I could profitably push/call that range.

Basically I do this all the time where I find a spot where I was wrong about the range I could push/call but want to know "by how much", so I manually decrement my stack size by reasonably small amounts and keep recalculating over and over again until I find the stack size where it's now okay to push/call that range. Would be great if I could do the reverse lookup as described in one step instead of the tedious way. (Or let me know if this is something that can already be done; I'm a pretty new customer.)

Thanks.

Any plans to add wsop.com NJ/NV structure? Its a 2k starting stack with slightly different blind levels. I tried to find a similar structure on another site currently offered under the quiz options but didnt find anything comparable.

Hi. That's an interesting experiment but notice that you are changing total sum of chips in the tournament by doing this. So, in reality, you are changing more parts than is ideal. Anyway, it is pretty easy to do with ICMIZER already so we do not plan to add a feature like this anytime soon.

Hi. Currently, there are no near time plans, if there is bigger demand then we will definitely consider adding them.
We've added Global Poker formats recently and it isn't very popular among our users. Is that wsop NJ/NV more popular than global poker or?

I think you meant to reply to me here.

I did forget to say that you would probably need to have a (for instance) checkbox to "lock" a total amount of chips in play. So if you, say, removed $100 chips from a single stack, ICMizer would know that it has to stay at $13500 total and it would automatically distribute the extra chips evenly(ish) to the other stacks. Or perhaps give them all to a really large stack, if one is present, such that the extra chips don't really change the overall situation for any other player but the hero. This is what I have to do manually; it's more steps than it may seem. My original thinking was that you would only use this option to examine a relatively close situation, so you wouldn't need to change too much.

But you're right in that the idea does get a little more complicated than I let on in making sure it doesn't change more than is ideal, as you say. The more general idea I was thinking of was that it would be nice to be able to hold all but one variable constant, and then solve for that one variable, where that variable could be hero stack size, hero position, maybe other things I'm not thinking of. Instead of just the range variable. It just seemed like the needed math framework would be there under the hood already, you would just have to solve for one of the other variables. On the user end they would have to select which things to hold constant, and fill out those values, leaving exactly one thing to solve for. Obv your concern about changing too much is a good point, and there might be practical obstacles I'm not aware of or thinking of atm, but I figured it was worth a mention.

Also, since I mentioned the checkbox to "lock" total chips in play: aside from possibly helping to implement something like the above, this would be a nice feature on its own as it could at the very least autofill the last open field, possibly evenly distributing remaining chips as you fill in fields. Even better: the ability to rotate existing stack sizes through the different positions.

I realize these things may sound trivial, but for those of us who (through no fault of yours) have to manually input every hand we examine (Global poker disallows HH), it can quickly get very tedious to use ICMizer. For instance, a frequent occurrence is when you suddenly realize you've accidentally input the first four stack sizes in the wrong positions, and have to do it over. Or if you examine consecutive hands, a lot of the time most of the stack sizes are the same, so most of the amounts you need are already filled in, but they are now in the wrong position since the button has moved. Same thing if you accidentally select one more or less player than you meant to and only realize your mistake after putting some stacks in. These things are way too easy to do during a long session, and if you could quickly rotate stack sizes up or down through the positions, with a button click, I think it would eliminate a lot of tediousness for manual users.

Anyway. Just some ideas. The last two I only mention because they seem like they would be very easy to implement. Thanks for listening and for being involved in the thread.

This works on Macs without any problems right?

Hi SageLee

While some features that you describe are too user-specific to ever make it to ICMIZER, I am pleased to let you know that this is already implemented for last couple of years or more.
Just use arrow buttons next to Stacks column to rotate stacks clockwise or counterclockwise

Hi HurricaneNick

Yes, it should.
The easiest way to run it would be from the browser,
here: https://www.icmpoker.com/icmizer/

The downloadable Mac client also exists:
https://www.icmpoker.com/en/download/#Mac

Does anyone know what the payout structure is for the $7 and $15 On-Demands on Stars? Obviously it would vary given that the player pool is different each time but i'm wondering if simply using a 90-man turbo structure is the best choice?

Hello.

feature request:
working with command line having commands to set ranges
output as a text file

it would be so awesome if you could do it

Hi. I am not sure what you are asking here. If there is a tournament, then there is a lobby with a payout structure. And in ICMIZER you can create a custom tournament with any payout.
Please elaborate more on the problem if I didn't answer your concern.

Hi. This is not planned, ICMIZER is supposed to be operated by a person.

ICMIZER Update 2.15.10

Brought back screenshot functionality to the downloadable version.
Just press F12 or choose Screenshot option from the menu in the upper right corner.

This update also includes a few bug fixes and improvements.

Hello.
Feature request: command line interface with output result as a text file.
Another feature request maybe from just a fantasy area: supporting postflop AI plugins via universal poker interface. I understand that allowing flat calling and postflop in times will increase calculatioin time. But it can be useful for not real time analyze.

I would be happy if ICMIZER would support command line with opportunity to set custom calling ranges.

I review a lot of ICM hands for the On-Demand MT-SNGS on stars which do not have a set number of players; though offically 27-180mans they usually have around 60-100 players

It would be time consuming to have to create a custom pay out table for each and evey tournament, since each payout table is technically different due to the number of players entering, so i was just wondering if i can/should use the 90-man payout structure to get good/simuler results with much less hassles

Hi.
Unfortunately, such features are extremely expensive and there are not enough customers ready to pay for them, so it is unlikely to be added.

Hi
The best way is to compare results using a precise payout structure and an existing payout structure and to figure it out yourself.
However, the results obviously will always be better with a precise payout structure.
In some cases, for example in MTT mode at the bubble, the difference in a number of actual payouts can be critical and affect results in a big way.
I recommend to test it out and choose what works for you.
You can create several custom payout tournaments and choose between them when reviewing your histories, it will lead to good results.

Hi,
when I manually adding payouts to new tournament structure I'm using TABulator key to pass the next cell but it works only till 9th cell then I have to akwardly use mouse to get to the next one.
Can you please fix this, thank you.

Thinking of buying icmizer so I can use sng coach. But I'm wondering if it's possible to customize a format? Because the closest I can find similar to the sng's I play is pokerstars 6 max turbo with ante. But I don't want ante

Hi yolae.
Thanks for reporting this issue.
We will have a look at it.

Hi The Learner.
Good thoughts!
You can have a look at global poker quizzes, they are at the end of the list.
They do not have antes I believe and could be a better fit.
You cannot create a custom quiz in SNG Coach, only select one from the list and then customize the coaching process.

It actually had antes at the higher blind levels.
And I need the price structure to be at 60/40.
So I think only party poker is a fit for that.
But unfortunately with ante.
I guess I have to play a little tighter than I do in sng coach then.
Hard to know how much though.