F
fundiver199
Legend
Loyaler
I have been a bit lazy studying lately, but recently I (re)purchased ICMizer for 3 month, and have since been systematically using the program to look for leaks in SnGs. The way, I do that, is to export a bucket of hand histories from PT4 and then copy-paste them into ICMizer. The program will then start to systematically look for any push-fold spot and analyse those hands. So for instance if I min-raised, got called, and then had postflop action, the hand is skipped. The analysed hands are then listed with the biggest mistakes on top, and then I basically look at those to see, what I did wrong.
I will however also check the assumptions, that ICMizer makes about other players ranges to see, if maybe I had a valid reason to deviate from the Nash equilibrium. This morning I played four 6-max hyperturbo KO SnGs on Stars, which is a fun format, that I am still pretty new to. The bounty is half the price pool and the payouts are 50/50 rather than 65/35 as in normal 6-mans. So there are definitly some large adjustments to be made here compared to other format. To illustrate, how the study process work, lets look at the two largest mistakes, which ICMizer found in this small sample of 57 hands.
This hand was the second in the game, so everyone still had close to starting chips. I open UTG and then HJ jam and CO also jam. CO had the same stack as me, HJ covered us both. In a normal game without bounties this would be an easy fold. However when half the price pool is bounties, you need to call off significantly wider. If I could win both, it would be a clear call. Being able to win only one I thought, it was close, but still decided to call. ICMizer however does not agree with that. It says, calling loses me 1,56% of the price pool, which is a significant mistake. It wants me to call only with TT+, AK.
However ICMizer assumes, that CO is only getting it in with 88+, AQ+. And as we can see, he was quite a bit wider than that. I also had reason to expect that, since he had stats of VPIP 49 / PFR 27 over 45 hands, which is way to loose (maniac). If I manually drag out COs range, until its wide enough to include KTo, then calling with 88 is massively profitable and wins me 2,9% of the price pool. So rather than being a huge spew, the hand was an example off, how the HUD in PT4 allows me to make profitable adjustments to individual players and their tendencies.
In this hand we were 5-handed, HJ limped, and I decided to jam with A9o for 17BB effective slightly covering him. ICMizer think, this is to wide and loses me 0,48% of the price pool. It wants me to have at least ATo, which it says is basically breakeven. However ICMizer assumes, CO has an uncapped limping range. He folded, so I dont know, what he had. I also did not have HUD-stats on him.
But I think, its fair to assume, that the average person limping into pots from HJ in a $5 SnG has a capped range. If he had a strong hand, he would most likely have min-raised it for value being happy to call it off, if someone jammed on him. And if I cap his range to not include JJ+ or AQ+, now I am winning 0,79% of the price pool. So I think, jamming here was fine, although folding, or even raising small to like 2,5BB and hope to isolate him, would also have been valid options.
This got a bit long, but I hope, it can be usefull to people, who are thinking about how to study in a more systematic way using paid software to help them improve their game. And before someone ask: No I am not getting paid to promote either PT4 or ICMizer. I just think, they are two very usefull pieces of software, that quickly pay for themselfes, if you are a serious player
I will however also check the assumptions, that ICMizer makes about other players ranges to see, if maybe I had a valid reason to deviate from the Nash equilibrium. This morning I played four 6-max hyperturbo KO SnGs on Stars, which is a fun format, that I am still pretty new to. The bounty is half the price pool and the payouts are 50/50 rather than 65/35 as in normal 6-mans. So there are definitly some large adjustments to be made here compared to other format. To illustrate, how the study process work, lets look at the two largest mistakes, which ICMizer found in this small sample of 57 hands.
CardsChat Poker Hands Converter
Convert your hand history into forum code, plain text or relive your hand and create animated replays
www.cardschat.com
This hand was the second in the game, so everyone still had close to starting chips. I open UTG and then HJ jam and CO also jam. CO had the same stack as me, HJ covered us both. In a normal game without bounties this would be an easy fold. However when half the price pool is bounties, you need to call off significantly wider. If I could win both, it would be a clear call. Being able to win only one I thought, it was close, but still decided to call. ICMizer however does not agree with that. It says, calling loses me 1,56% of the price pool, which is a significant mistake. It wants me to call only with TT+, AK.
However ICMizer assumes, that CO is only getting it in with 88+, AQ+. And as we can see, he was quite a bit wider than that. I also had reason to expect that, since he had stats of VPIP 49 / PFR 27 over 45 hands, which is way to loose (maniac). If I manually drag out COs range, until its wide enough to include KTo, then calling with 88 is massively profitable and wins me 2,9% of the price pool. So rather than being a huge spew, the hand was an example off, how the HUD in PT4 allows me to make profitable adjustments to individual players and their tendencies.
CardsChat Poker Hands Converter
Convert your hand history into forum code, plain text or relive your hand and create animated replays
www.cardschat.com
In this hand we were 5-handed, HJ limped, and I decided to jam with A9o for 17BB effective slightly covering him. ICMizer think, this is to wide and loses me 0,48% of the price pool. It wants me to have at least ATo, which it says is basically breakeven. However ICMizer assumes, CO has an uncapped limping range. He folded, so I dont know, what he had. I also did not have HUD-stats on him.
But I think, its fair to assume, that the average person limping into pots from HJ in a $5 SnG has a capped range. If he had a strong hand, he would most likely have min-raised it for value being happy to call it off, if someone jammed on him. And if I cap his range to not include JJ+ or AQ+, now I am winning 0,79% of the price pool. So I think, jamming here was fine, although folding, or even raising small to like 2,5BB and hope to isolate him, would also have been valid options.
This got a bit long, but I hope, it can be usefull to people, who are thinking about how to study in a more systematic way using paid software to help them improve their game. And before someone ask: No I am not getting paid to promote either PT4 or ICMizer. I just think, they are two very usefull pieces of software, that quickly pay for themselfes, if you are a serious player
Last edited:
