Yeah makes sense now jason when you consider the BB's situation alittle closer. But i think often in this spot i will find a fold from the BB due to the 2 other 1100 stacks (i know i definitely have not been calling with 70% here). Often BB will fold and hope 1 of the other 2 shorties with get it in on their blinds and/or timebank trying to push the blinds up on the other short stacks.

But very interesting spot for sure, more so for the BB. Might have to make some adjustments there

Hey, found another challenge for you It seems to ignore BB range completely in this one, and overvalues shortstack range.

Because the SB's calling range is 100% (which I think you'll agree is correct since he cant even cover the small blind), the BB's call range can never actually come into play and therefore modifying it shows no effect. You'll need to adjust the BB's overcall range from the Details View in order to affect the analysis in this spot.

So, I think the math is all good here. It does show an area where the UI could be improved though... so I'll add that to my list.

Yeah, you're right. Thanks for explanation.

i think it would be great if you could move the dealler button around..

I'm not sure I understand what you mean exactly. Could you elaborate a bit? Do you mean rotate the stack positions and re-solve the game automatically?

Ongame HHs import perfectly now, thanks!

Now another little request and I'm ready to buy. Can you make player names from HHs appear next to position in the player box? Then I could modify ranges a bit identifying players as regs or unkowns. It would be even more practical to use in everyday reviews.

Thanks again!

Sound like a good idea. I'll see what I can do.

Yes, I meant to rotate stack possition without nesessity to inputing the data all over again. I dont mean to resolve it automaticaly, Its no problem to click "Solve it" button.

PS. Of course the purpose of it, is to be able more easily to use sng solver during the session (not only post session)

Seems reasonable... I'll see what I can do, but...

I will warn you that using SnG Solver during a session probably violates the terms of service for most online poker sites. On PokerStars, for example, SnG Solver is explicitly listed as being prohibited during live play (http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/prohibited/)... so, please check your site's rules to make sure you dont put your account at risk.

woaha i wasn't aware of this.

could you add a safeguard, like checking if Stars is running and display a warning?

TBH, I would have thought that PokerStars would already have something like this in place. Being in the USA, I dont have access to PokerStars, so I dont really know what happens if you try to run a PS session and SnG Solver at the same time. All I know is that SnG Solver has been put on their "list"... I have had no correspondence with them.

I'm not that eager to spend my time policing other people's ToS, but I'll try to get in contact with PokerStars and see that the situation is.

FYI: when you try to run SNG Wizard when you have PokerStars open, it's SNG Wizard that will give you a warning and not let you use it. I'm not sure what PokerStars has in place.

there should be also possibility of setting 0% calling range for someone who is sitting out (or just marking that he sits out)

Its basicaly impossible to use such a tool during session, but sometimes when one or two tables left its good to practice "live" imo.

No. Stop knowingly and deliberately violating Stars' Terms & Conditions. It's only a matter of time until you get caught doing that.

Doing some comparison between this and SNG Wizard to see the difference. I understand there are spots (especially the bubble) where using ICM isn't a good idea. However why is there a difference in a hand like this:

PokerStars Game #57721081437: Tournament #365079882, $55+$5 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level V (75/150) - 2011/02/15 15:20:12 ET
Table '365079882 1' 6-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 1: darinvg (1665 in chips)
Seat 2: poppnbottles (2110 in chips)
Seat 3: kokomowill (1400 in chips)
Seat 4: scottoffee (660 in chips)
Seat 5: rallefish (1120 in chips)
Seat 6: fpmj (2045 in chips)
darinvg: posts small blind 75
poppnbottles: posts big blind 150
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to darinvg [Js 4s]
kokomowill: folds
scottoffee: folds
rallefish: folds
fpmj: folds
darinvg: folds
Uncalled bet (75) returned to poppnbottles
poppnbottles collected 150 from pot
poppnbottles: doesn't show hand
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 150 | Rake 0
Seat 1: darinvg (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 2: poppnbottles (big blind) collected (150)
Seat 3: kokomowill folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: scottoffee folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: rallefish folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: fpmj (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)

SnG Solver says push 56.3% vs the given call range (24.7%). If I have the BB call 24.7% in SNG Wizard, it says I can push 67.4%.

Just trying to get a base of the difference between the two since all of my previous studying has been with ICM. Thanks!

I dont play on Stars... So better take care of yr own business

There are a lot of variables at work in the Predictive Simulation algorithm and the effects (and differences from ICM) can be very non-linear and sometimes hard to intuit.

A few things that stick out in this hand are that 1) there's a shorter stack than us that's about to hit the BB and get even shorter, 2) there is the short stack that is going to be UTG next hand, and 3) the biggest stack will be in a prime "steal spot" next hand.

All of these things will have an effect on SnG Solver's analysis but wont be accounted for by an ICM based program like SNG Wizard. If you turn the Predictive Simulation to "off" you can see that our push range changes from 56.3% to 61.4% (vs a 24.7% BB call range). That is the difference between PSM and ICM in this spot.

The rest of the difference between 61.4% and what you see in sngwiz might be because of differences in handrankings (Solver's 24.7% is different than Wis'z 24.7%) and because Wiz approximates the contribution from possible "tie pots", whereas Solver calculates tied pots precisely.

This can be done... I'll put it on the list.

When you adjust the ranges, it doesn't readjust the nash ranges. So I assume there is no way to study calling ranges currently?

The Nash equilibrium doesnt change if you manually adjust a range because then, by definition, it would no longer be a Nash equilibrium.

You can certainly study calling ranges in SnG Solver... you can change the actions of the players that act before the Hero to "push" and then the displayed Hero's range represents the best-response call range... or am I not understanding what you're asking?

You understood perfectly. Had no idea you could set the other players to push etc. Thank you

Okay, cool. I know the documentation is a little thin right now... version 1.1 is in the works and will mean a few big changes to the UI, so I've been holding off updating the docs until I get that finished.