I would like to be allowed to assign 0% calling range.

Good idea generally, is planned to be added in reasonable future. It mostly affects satties though, do you happen to play those?

No, but I had a situation in which BB was sitting out.

I see. Well for any practical needs leaving him on AA range in this spot would give you very accurate results in any structure except satties.

But I am not taking back promise to add it.

There is a place where we can see the changelog version?
Or maybe you can post it here? thank you very much,
This last one look very useful thank you!
We are all waiting for FGS, it we be awesome if we could desviate from nash in the futurs hands,

cheers

Hey. The easiest and reliable place with all changes info is ICMIZER group on facebook/google+, I post all changes there the day they happen.

Regarding latest 1.4.0 version it can be found here: http://www.pokericmcalculator.com/en...resteal-spots/

As for deviation, let me release initial FGS first, then we talk about deviations =)

Also regarding updates. When Second number is increased, it would mean that some new feature was added.
Like now v1.3.4-> v.1.4.0

If last number changes, its something minor, most likely a bugfix.

i didnt know you have a fb page! thanks!

hi

1)
looks like this new nash sb-bb feature only works when we are sitting in the BB?

curious what a proper nash-raise range is (2.3x) for the sb spot

2) is there a way of setting the total amount of chips to a fixed number? (everytime i wanna analyse final 2 tables) (67500 for 45man?). i have to change it everytime manually -.-

ty. bye

1) You can get proper raise nash range for SB when Hero is on BB position. Just set SB raise size to desired amount (2.3x) and then hit [calculate nash equilibrium], [find optimal SB range]
2) No, not currently. Maybe later.

ad 1)

yes i understand that it works from the bb position against villain from the sb

but i meant when I (hero) am sitting in the SB: i am curious what proper nashraiserange is.

If you are curious, you put yourself on BB position, and get solution, which includes SB.
So clear to me when I write it, do I miss something?
How do I make it easier to understand.

i think i got it now lol. total brainbug on my part

you'll have to tolerate me for a while as i took a 1 year subscription. ;-)

great support and cant remember when i used sngwiz the last time.

Is there any way I can pay for a sub via stars funds ?

Great =)


Not at the moment I am afraid. Please note that you can ask a friend to purchase ICMIZER key for you. After purchase he will have a totally independant subscription key, which he can then give back to you.

hey,
I just purchased ICMIZER and tried to type in the code and it wouldn't work so, I tried copy and pasting and it just comes up when I try to paste it "silver light" and "remove this application " any help mate

Hey

Please make sure that you have completed signup procedure here:

http://www.pokericmcalculator.com/signup/

And then that you are logged in here:

http://www.pokericmcalculator.com/login/

If you aren't logged in there is no way to activate subscription, because it gets bound to your account.

Hope it helps,

Thanks

Added support for microgaming poker network today.

Hands should look like:

Let me know if you experience any problems with new format

hi ,

I was wondering if ICMIZER in the future, but I have mac . Is this a problem ?

Pokeryogi888, ICMIZER works fine on mac.
You can go try it out now, then decide whether you like it.

Not sure if you know (unless I'm missing something) but your purchase buttons don't work in chrome.

Hey mashxx.

They do work generally I believe (otherwise id have no sales), but sometimes they don't (third time or so I hear about it, however never on my machine and I use chrome all the time) and I am not sure under which circumstances.

Thanks for letting me know. Do they work for you in other browsers? Were you able to complete the purchase or you need further assistance?

I switched to IE and bought one year subscription, I'll try do some more tests later (like disabling ad-block or other settings)

Thanks, I would appreciate it. Really super serious bug when it happens, but I am yet really unsure what circumstances lead to such behavior.

Hi. Last night I was playing a 10-man SNG and it got to 4-handed. The chip leader had a massive lead, 2nd and 3rd place (I was 3rd) had v. small stacks, and the short stack had almost nothing. The chip leader was pushing every hand and we were folding every hand.

The hand: PartyGaming - $22+$0|400/800 NL - Holdem - 4 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

Hero (SB): 2.19 BB
BB: 1.04 BB (VPIP: 17.74, PFR: 13.73, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 63)
CO: 2.81 BB (VPIP: 14.81, PFR: 12.76, 3Bet Preflop: 4.89, Hands: 633)
BTN: 22.54 BB (VPIP: 19.00, PFR: 17.20, 3Bet Preflop: 3.85, Hands: 103)

4 players post ante of 0.04 BB, Hero posts SB 0.57 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.71 BB) Hero has Q J

fold, BTN raises to 22.5 BB and is all-in, fold

Flop: (2.71 BB, 2 players) 9 A 8

Turn: (2.71 BB, 2 players) Q

River: (2.71 BB, 2 players) 8



Should I have called with QJ? ICMIZER says yes: http://www.pokericmcalculator.com/icmizer/#Bcjm
Question 1 Given that I believe the BTN is pushing 100%, have I inputted that correctly^^^? I have selected "any two" for BTN call range - is that how I do it?

Question 2 I've worked out the same problem manually, taking into account the "bubble factor" outlined in Kill Everyone thus:

My ICM right now*: 24.8%
My ICM if I lose the all-in**: 0%
My ICM if I win the all-in: 29.97%

My bubble factor is (loss in ICM of losing / gain in ICM of winning) = (24.8 / 29.97-24.8) = ~4.8

Kill Everyone defines tournament odds as (actual odds / bubble factor).
My actual odds in the hand are 2.45:1, therefore my tournament odds are (2.45 / 4.8) = 0.5:1

Therefore I need a (1 / 1.51) = 66% chance of winning the hand.

But when I pokerstove QJo vs. a random hand (I believe my opponent is pushing 100%), I am only a ~58% favourite, which leads me to believe I should fold.

In the heat of the moment, I thought it was far better to fold seeing as there was a good chance the short-stack would be eliminated, and I'd thus be ITM - isn't it, contra ICMIZER, better to fold here than to take a chance with a mediocre hand when a short-stack is very possibly going to eliminated?

Maybe I programmed it incorrectly - please could you share your thoughts on this? Thanks.

*I have assumed when calculating my current ICM that I fold and the chip leader busts the shortstack, thereby propelling the 3 of us into the money. Is this a safe assumption?
**To calculate this I've assumed the worst, namely that the short-stack will win the main pot, that the chip-leader will win the side pot, and I will bust out in 4th place. Is this a safe assumption?

Working the problem out manually, I have been very presumptuous, and haven't accounted for a number of situations, e.g. where the chip leader wins the above hand outright, and the short-stack and I are both eliminated, but I place 3rd and take the cash, because I had more chips than him. Does ICMIZER take all these situations into account when making its calculations?

P.S. ICMIZER is a great programme, keep up the good work.

Hey well put question

Question 1 yes you input everything correctly. BB is automatically all-in so BTN "calls" his shove when he decides to go all-in. Thats how ICMIZER views this situation.

Everything is calculated correctly here, and you should call.

Question 2 Running ICM calculations by hand is Very difficult. The only task, which is even more difficult, is to find mistakes in someones manual ICM calculations.

Important clues here that should lead you to decision that call can be pretty wide are the following

1) If you and BB lose to BTN you get ITM, and BB doesn't
2) Actual bust probability for you, which happens when BB wins and BTN wins side pot is only 12%~ here. (You can check that if you hit [QJ detailed result] button)

Another outcome that gives you no payout is when BB and BTN win and split, and you lose, and it accounts to 0.95% cases here.

Yes

Yes, thats the point of the program. To save you from all this tedius manual work.

I can see that you are ready to spend some additional time and wish to understand the calculation process better. I suggest you to hit [QJ detailed result] button more often, and analyze provided results.

I won't comment your manual calculations (for reason I state above), but this:

Sounds definately wrong, because QJ is a call, and it doesn't win this hand nearly 50% of the time 3 way.