Ye I suppose he could be flatting the nuts every now and again. Maybe there's a case for incorporating weighting?

Hey.

Adding ability to remove all hands from range is on the to do list, no question about it.

However I am very sceptical about players ability to guess opponent ranges.
I am even more sceptical about chance to guess opponent range with weighted hands in "hmm I think in this spot he plays those hands 100% of the time, and those hands 70% of the time etc". That just sounds like a lot of wishful thinking. In reality there is always uncertainty about big part of opponent range even when we forget about potential weighting.

And as I show in examples here, a mistake of 1 hand in 1 range can have a serious impact on our range:

http://www.icmpoker.com/en/blog/anal...sh-fold-spots/

So right now I have much more important features planned to be released first.

Fair enough.

Got a general question.

When a player goes allin and we have them and all the players behind covered and are then presented with a screen like this.



Are all the overcalls independent of each other? What I mean is, if CO OCs then should we be adjusting the ranges behind based on that, and if CO and BTN call, should we be factoring that into SB's range, etc?
Or are we supposed to just assume all the ranges after Hero calls are based on an UTG1 and a Hero call and nobody elses call?

Sorry if that is hard to understand or if it is a silly question. I've been using the software a lot more lately so I just want to make sure I'm not making loads of mistakes.


edit: I will be sure to start following your blog!

Hey. Understanding ranges columns is both very important and a little tricky.
I'll answer your question here but I strongly suggest to check out second part of tutorial video where I cover range columns in detail:

http://www.icmpoker.com/en/video/icm...ator-tutorial/

As for your question, ICMIZER considers only 3 way all-in situations, if we end up with 3 players all-in it will assume that everyone else will fold. This is because 4 way calculations of range vs range vs range vs range are simply computationally impossible in 2014.

So in your example we already have UTG1 AI, now if hero calls and say CO overcalls, everyone else including BB will be considered as folded by ICMIZER. If CO doesnt call, then BTN will have his chance to call according to probability of being dealt his range, an CO not being dealt his etc.

Also note that you are in Chip EV mode: as I explain in tutorial in Chip EV Ev Fold is calculated according to simple formula, so we don't care about actions behind us when we fold. If you switch to ICM mode, you will have OC ranges vs each potential caller in something like range-triangle-grid.

This may sound difficult to understand so just check out video, after 9 minutes or so I start to explain ranges on examples so that should definately answer your questions.

If you still have any after video I'd be glad to help, and maybe update vid so its even more detailed

Hey thanks for the video Q. Feel very confident that I've been using the software close to optimally. I will be sure to keep an eye out on that blog and learn how more though.
Also, I guess I now know why pokerstove never stops calculating when I try to see my equity for overcalling with lots of players already allin!

Oh yes. 3 way unrestricted Range vs Range vs Range calculations are very tricky. In fact, they are one of the most difficult parts of whole ICMIZER codebase.

It took a lot of months of work, various optimizations and tweaks to get it to current speed. You will see some other programs like Pokerstove as you say fall flat when they try to do 3 way unrestricted calculations.

With PokerStove it makes sense to hit Monte Carlo button when you are doing 3 way calculations.

This is something which you as user cannot really see (you simply can edit those ranges), but what is one of the foundations on which ICMIZER popularity stands (ability to easily assign any range to any player).

Hey Q, in a spot like this:



When decidinga sb push and a bb call range, because of the size of their stacks would it make sense to devise a bb 3b-jamming range and a sb call 3b-jam range?

For example, I've given the bb a range of;

55+,A7s+,A9o+,KJs+

which is what I think he'll 3b-jam (or 3b-small then call the 4b-jam) over a sb open, and I've given sb a range of;

77+,A9s+,ATo+

Which is what I think he might call if the bb 3b-jams over his open.


Does this make sense or is this flawed thinking? It won't have a huge impact in the hand in question because it is 18 left and 10th-18th all get paid the same.
It would be really useful to know if this thinking is correct because on a FT or a bubble the ranges of the blinds would have a greater impact on our own range.

Also, I have recently noticed the message that appears when we hover our cursor over the arrows on "Hero range with x.xx min EV diff %".

Is this message basically saying that we can look for lower edges in HU spots as the calculations are more accurate? I'm assuming this applies to any spot where we only have to input a single opponents' range, so for example, we min-open UTG 9-handed, UTG + 1 shoves and then it folds back to us. Or, as another example, CO open-shoves and it folds to us in the bb. These would be classed as a HU spot too and therefore we could go with a lower edge if we so desire!?

1) In this exact spot I would apply following thinking: both players are deep so its not very likely that they'll collide in preflop all-in and bust each other.

I would simply tighten up shoving range and calling range using some common sense in order to achieve some sort of small probability of their collision.
For example, on your screenshot chance of collision between SB and BB is 90%*5%= roughly 4.5%. In reality though its much smaller, in many cases they will play even strong hands as a raise, and we will see some postflop, where its not likely that theyll bust each other, since theyd require to hit board hard both. So we can edit pushing range to say 15% and call range to something reasonable too.

2) About your second part. The fewer players the better idea you can have about ranges and actions. Unlike previous example where we are doing a lot of guess work trying to predict SB & BB behavior, in your examples there are less variables, so you can take lower edge, like 0%.

Taking anything lower than 0% is not suggested though, unless you really know what you are doing.

Well, guys! It has finally happened.

FGS update has arrived: http://www.icmpoker.com/en/blog/icm-...e-simulations/

hi, good news, how many future hands it supports?

and, there is no chart avaible with FGS? ;(

Hey rhalala.

This release brings us 1 hand look ahead depth.

I'll be working on more FGS flexibility, depth, and will add support for Charts and other functions too now.

Hey there, Moneybooker bloqued Canadians, can you accept stars like i know you told someone to use moneybooker but they no longuer accept canadian and i want ICMizer shoot me a PM. We can tell stars your a friend or smth. thx

Hey, right now unfortunately there are no other payment options available then the ones offered on the website. ( I believe those are credit card and paypal).

I am working on new solution, but right now I can recommend you to ask a friend or relative to complete the payment, and send you the key over the email.
Note that license isn't bound to person who actually completes the purchase, an activation key is simply sent to provided email.

hi

i searched the hand i posted here long time ago. and wanted to know what FGS will say.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/16...9/index23.html

last 2 posts: with FGS the 98s shove is still negative, with or without FGS nash

so looks like FGS is not trustworthy yet. and its better to use common sense?
tx

Hi bbfreak, FGS is trustworthy right now.

I have had guys compare results of ICMIZER fgs with other programs providing fgs functionality.
So far everything seems to be fine, results make sense and agree.

Regarding your example, I followed link and got nowhere, could you quote a hand so I can check what you are referring to.

hm for me the link works. it is page 23 last 2 posts


http://www.pokericmcalculator.com/icmizer/#WTSn

i never know what to do in such spots. thats why i asked for future game.
going allin does cost 0.9 % of the pricepool? sick
should i wait for the bb? what do you suggest ty


your answer:

Well you clearly want to take a negative EV (single hand analysis) shove in spot like this. Playing only +EV would be a mistake when your stack is as shallow as 2BB like here.

Check your EV fold, its 8.83%. EV of 98s shove is -0.9%, but next hand BB hitting you will roughly take away half of your equity, if you choose to fold (you cant fold, but it should make sense what I am talking about). So I would assume that open shoving at least -1% EV would be a smart move in such spot.

Like this
http://www.pokericmcalculator.com/icmizer/#LwYJ

Maybe more, but of-course you open up your shoving range once you get to this spot. Next hand you are commited with ATC to call against anyone.

Think about next hand. Once you post blind you will have to call a shove with ATC against anyone, so immediate thought without any analysis is that if you shove top 25% hands now you will be making a smart tournament move.

Correct shortstacked plays from early positions do affect your ROI. However generally your equity is quite slim once you get in this stage, and even playing super great won't likely turn your 2BB stack in a lot of cash. Correct push/fold plays as big and medium stack will guarantee you pretty solid foundation for being a +EV player. Then you can polish less important spots, like short stack play in hands like this.


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

so you suggested on page 23 to set a large negative edge, so that 98s is pushable.
but with FGS it is still a fold. so i am interested whats the conclusion now. ty

Ah, I see thanks.

Well in this case FGS calculaiton is much more reliable than my guesstimate.
I assigned FGS nash ranges for this spot, then Calculated EV for 98s and got slightly negative -0.19% here.

So it seems that its not powerful enough for this spot still, and my guesstimate was wrong.

Hi, +1 for KOs (tournaments) payout structure to calculate more specific decisions correctly. Also i've read prev. posts about KOs not popular or ppl playing for fun, not true, ppl just dont know where they can find info faster then about regular tournaments.

Hello,

The nash equilibrium is not working and so is my stand alone program.

My username is DiegoT2

Hey Pilequinha

For this kind of problems please contact me over support email cause I handle this kind of emeregency requests faster there.

I logged in with your account and everything seems to be working for me.
If you are still experiencing a problem please contact me over email from this page:
http://www.icmpoker.com/en/feedback/

Timyrcid, I've added KOs to my list. I'll let everyone know once they are added.
No ETA yet but its higher up in my priority lists now.

hi
i wrote u per mail that the microgaming hand import does not work properly
blinds+ante import is ignored. and copypaste the hand from hem1 doesn't work too
ty

+ cant find HH on the harddrive?!! but hem1 does import it. -.-