yukoncpa,
You raise an important issue... I'll try to get in some kind of alternate/custom palette mechanism soon.
Pagasses,
In many situations, the results from SnG Solver and ICM-based programs will be nearly the same... these will be spots where the stacks are relatively deep and there is less of a "bubble effect" going on. But things can change quickly as the stacks get shallower and the blinds approach...
At the risk of making things more confusing, let me make an analogy to physics...
Modern physics describes a few fundamental forces in nature... gravity, electro-magnetism, and the nuclear forces. When considering the total force between two objects, all of the forces are present, but depending on the scale of the objects, the different forces become more or less important.
At the scale of planets and stars, gravity is by far the most dominant and the other forces are impossible to detect. This is like when the stacks are deep in a tournament. When the stack/blind ratio is very large, having to pay the blinds doesnt really matter and stack size is the only thing we need to calculate equity.
But when we consider a smaller scale... like the force of the magnet stuck to my refrigerator door, or the force that binds the molecules of the refrigerator itself, then the electro-magnetic force dominates over gravity. The gravity is still there, but it takes a back seat to the contribution of EM at this smaller scale. This is like the when the stacks get short and having to take the blinds means the loss of fold equity.
Finally, within the atom itself, the nuclear forces that keep the atomic nuclei from flying apart are far stronger than either EM or gravity at such a small scale. Again, the other forces are still there, but nowhere near as important. This is like when the stacks are smaller still and a micro stack UTG is at risk of busting and the "bubble effect" takes over.
In this analogy, ICM is like a tool that can only measure gravity. Its fine for measuring the force between planets... but terrible for measuring the forces of smaller objects. SnG Solver and its Predictive Simulation algorithm is sensitive to all of the forces... you can get accurate measurements at any scale.
Anyways, I hope that made some kind of sense. I've clearly been sitting at my computer too long and I'm starting to lose my mind...
But another thing to consider is the "edge" adjustment in SNGWiz. The fact that the "edge" adjustment exists at all is proof that there is something wrong with ICM based calculations. Any situation where you need to add in some kind of "edge" correction in order to make the results seem acceptable is a spot where ICM has failed. SnG Solver needs no such corrections to its results.
Also, dont forget that SnG Solver has some other things going for it besides Predictive Simulation... Like automatic calculation of approximate Nash strategies for all opponents means never forgetting to have to set opponent ranges. How many times have you read a thread in STT Strategy where somebody posts a sngwiz analysis thats ridiculous because they forgot to adjust all the default ranges?
Plus there's cool stuff like the EV-RMSD graph which, I must say, has not been getting enough love... but I'm sure you guys will come around eventually.
After the next update is out, I'll be working on some experiments to quantify just how much better SnG Solver is over the competition. I expect to be able to make a statement like: "If you use some other software to develop your strategies, you are being exploited by x% by someone using SnG Solver!"
Okay, tl;dr... right? I totally took your bait, Pagasses