Yes creating a partial payout structure is currently not supported.

Initially I made a requirement to enter full prize pool in order to get correct results.

For example if some push is 0.2% of total prize pool, but in reality you are only entered remaining 6 payouts, and didnt enter other payouts which have already been paid, you create a wrong payout structure for tournament. And results you will be getting will be only right in their sign not actual number, because perceived prize pool is much smaller.

Same dollar difference would be a bigger % of sum of 6 payouts, than sum of all payouts. I hope I made this clear.

If you wish to create a payout structure with remaining 6 payouts, enter 1 participant, then total prize pool in another field, then enter remaining 6 payouts, and then hit [Done] button. It shouldn't take too long I believe, and with this structure you will be getting correct results (in % and in $ if you choose ICM$ output).

Hi Q,

I would like to make use of your money back offer as per descroption on your webpage:
*100% no questions asked money back guarantee during first month after purchase. Poker players from all over the world enjoy ICMIZER so we are positive that you will be happy with our program too. But if you will feel that ICMIZER is not suitable for you, you will get a full refund.
Just sent you an email yestrday, may email address grupa66@o2.pl

Waiting for your reply,
Patryk.

I'm in a similar boat. There is no error message which shows. It accepts my tournament history and says "Text looks like 1 hand history". When I select to "load them", the ICMIZER page has an additional window available (it looks like it's the tool to cycle through each hand of a given history) however it shows "Hand 0 of 0" at the top of the window.

BTW, I am otherwise quite happy with the software, pretty great product!

ppietn, thats sorted out through emails

KraventheHunter, I have just dealt with this specific kind of problem in january 2 update.
Check if issue still exists in online web version because downloadble may take some time to update, if the answer is yes:
please send me specifics of your problem to email support so I can have a look.

I need to know your operating system and actual files you are having troubles with importing.
This has high priority so I promise to fix your issue in very timely manner.

Thanks Q. Tried it on the website, worked great. I'll just give it a few days to load down to the desktop client. Does the client automatically update itself? I'm on Mac OSx for what it's worth. Anyhow, I'll email for support if it doesn't straighten itself out.

Usually update takes a few days to push to machine.

You can force download though, just click right mouse button in online version to get context menu, then choose Remove this application menu item.

Then hit download again, this way you get latest version.

Glad it helped, and yes this update was targeting Mac OS problems with hand parsing.

current timeline for future game simulations?

Hey

Thats the next thing I am going to implement and I am working on in right now.
Although Nash release took a lot of time and definately more than I initially expected.

I was pretty busy with personal life in December so didn't work too much. I would like to say that timeframe is 1 month, but true answer with software development is as usual: when its done.

Are you able to explain when the different hand rankings are relevant?

I.e. I assume S-C is for full ring?
What about the random hand, power push and power call ranges?

I play HUSNG so would any of these be better than the others given I'm only going to face 1 opponent?

Thanks

Choosing desired rankings is an excercise to program user, please notice that if you wish, you can create your own hand rankings, so you are in no way limited to those 4 default ones.

I think those who really need custom rankings wouldn't be asking this question, and amount of those people would be pretty small too.

Its an option one can use, if he feels like it. SC is a known ranking system which generally works for situations where you are called by one opponent.

VS random hand is interesting when opponent calls extremely wide, or with random hand (makes sense right).

Power push and power call represent rankings of hands ordered against reasonably tight call and push ranges.

You know that when you construct call range against some kind of top 50% hands for example, it would have different hand order, than if you know that opponent range is all 100% hands including all those junky 83o and 92o-s.

You can read about creating custom rankings here: http://www.pokericmcalculator.com/en...hanges-of-may/

Hi Q,

I searched but maybe this has been answered already. Sorry if it has.

The web version and the download version give different results for the same scenario.

Am I missing something. Should I be using the web or download version?

This is really weird behavior.

I believe something has to be different but maybe you aren't noticing it.
There is a slim chance your download version is very old, but somehow still works.

Use advice I gave above to get latest version first:

Then if you still think you are experiencing such behavior, please send me a detailed email to support email and I will have a close look on it.

But frankly, I dont think this is possible cause they both make a call to server, and server produces the results, so you must understand likelyhood of this.

Hi Q

Yes I thought it queried the same server which is why I was puzzled.
Will keep checking and let you know if there is a consistent problem.

Hey Q,

When all the parameters are exactly the same they produce the same results.
What was confusing me was, the default parameters on startup produce different default ranges.

For example:

web: HU / 15/30 SB 500chips, BB500 chips, SB open to 60. BB shove all in, range output for SB (before calculation button pressed is 5% and Call Shove at .5%)

standalone same scenario said (8% and 12%) just a little confusing when switching to download version. But when you personally enter the ranges the calculations are the same.

peace

I am not sure I understand your detailed problem description cause you say "produce different default ranges" and I am not sure what that means.

By produce I think something is actually being calculated, but you probably mean that at the start, different version "use" different ranges, so starting conditions are different?

Or you produce those ranges using Nash equilibrium ranges?

Anyway let me know if I can still help you with something here, or we got this figured out.

Thanks for your response, I think S-C would be best but have asked for some input from the HUSNG forum to be sure.

Hello,

First I want to say that you did an awesome job with the software, it`s
probably the best software to analyze preflopplay.

Now a couple Questions(possibly a feature request ) :

www.pokericmcalculator.com/icmizer/#eitq

I don`t know how long the link will work here the situation:

Chip cEV 50/100 Blinds

Stacks :

UTG 2000 bet 200 4betshoveev
HiJ 2000 raise 400 Range 7,09% TT+ AKs AKo A2-A7s T8s-T9s 97-98s 87s 76s
Ca: TT+ AK
Co 2000
BTN 2000
SB 2000
BB 2000

So as you might see now, UTG can shove 46,3% of the hands profitably in
this spot. My question here is, is this because we got 200 in and
folding is -2bb ? So a shove that is +1,21bb is only losing 0.8bb?

Now lets say we are the HJ we got AA instead of 3betting we shove, we
got ev X. Now I wanna know how my ev would be, if I 3bet and he shoves
his entire openingrange(As it would be +ev to do so according to
icmizer). So what I wanna know would it be better to 3bet with some
bluffs, or to directly shove(including the folds we would do). I would say basically im looking for a Nash-Equibilrium 3bettingrange, meaning he would lose money if he folds too much of his open or lose money if he would shove too much. Obviously we would ignore flatting in this spot.

You ask why, and provide following potential reasoning:

Of course when we got 200 chips in already that makes us more committed to pot, widening all our response ranges (generally speaking). Here however more important variable is that your opponent while being very tight at 3bet 7.5% only, actually folds a big part of that tight range, close to 50% of all hands. only continuing with top 3.9% hands making his fold frequency very high (7.5-3.9)/7.5 * 100% = 48%

In this case there is a pretty non-linear effect response of your 4bet range to his call range, if he calls just a little more often your 4bet-shoving range shrinks rapidly.

So when we aren't pressured by ICM (calculations are done chip wise) we end up with a pretty wide 4 bet range here.

As for finding equilibrium non all-in resteal ranges like HIJs range for this spot, that problem currently looks very complex to me. Current new features plans include better all-in decisions analysis; non all-in decisions are harder for computational reasons because they involve more variables.

Hey thanks for the answer,


Yeah I tried to calculate it too, it seemed quite hard. Tough I came to the conclusion:

We 3bet to 4bb and in the pot are 3.5 bb, so

3,5x = 4*(1-x)
x = 0.5333

So as long as they fold 53% of the time and has the same brokeingrange then when we would shove it should have the same ev as just shoving pre.

Now I tought when I look at the results of ICMIZER. So we said as long as they fold at least 53% of the time and have the same 3bettingrange its good to 3bet.

I prepared something:

www.pokericmcalculator.com/icmizer/#celb

Now let`s say utg opens 15%, I don`t know how much the others can really overshove over the 3bet, but it pretty much can`t be more than utg, so I would guess it`s like JJ+ AK(3%) and as you can see utg can shove 4,4%.

So we got 4 players behind with like JJ+ AK so thats 0.97^4 and we got one player with an openingrange of 15% and 4,4% shovingrange, so that`s (4.4*100/15 = 29,33%) =

0,97^4*0,7= 61,97% of the time they should fold.

Am I interpreting the results right?

So it would be really nice if you could include a 4bet-scenario for players other than the opener. Shouldn`t be too hard as it`s an allinsituation too?

So situation would be for example :

UTG - Open 3bet HJ we in the rest of the positions 4bet%????

when i'm using a payout structure of 180-mans, is icmizer always operating under the assumption that i'm at a final table? it doesn't seem like ICMIZER can discern how many people are left in the tournament from the hand history.

Clayton, of course it cannot figure out how many people are left, cause that information is not presented in hand history.

So if you wish to analyze non final table you need to use MTT switch, and manually enter remaining number of players and chips sum.

Follow this article for guidance: http://www.pokericmcalculator.com/en...cm-calculator/

Thanks Q

http://www.pokericmcalculator.com/en-us/purchase/
i click on every 'purchase' and nothing happens at all

im using google chrome and im logged in ofcourse..

Thats an odd bug which I heard of once before.

Maybe there is some weird problem with javascript so I will provide you purchase links here

1 month

3 months

6 months

1 year

Please choose your desired subscription period and buy using the links above.