|
|
#21
11-02-2007, 11:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Trouble with SNGWizard, getting frustrated
[ QUOTE ]
When I review games, several problems occur. [/ QUOTE ] Do you have the latest release? If you do and you are still having problems, send me some hand histories. 
|
|
#22
11-02-2007, 11:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Trouble with SNGWizard, getting frustrated
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] i would never use the default wiz ranges. [/ QUOTE ] Never, really? It seems like they would be close once in a while just by accident. Are they generally too tight, too loose, or both? [/ QUOTE ] Both the default ranges and the calculated minimum edge are red herrings for people using the program. It's not that the minimum edge is so inaccurate all the time. It's just that it doesn't tell the user anything that shouldn't be obvious from the numerical $EV difference result anyway. I never run a calculation without immediately opening the plot window. The default ranges just keep people from actually having to think about anything like the sensitivity of the answer to changes in those ranges, so they usually don't.
|
|
#24
11-02-2007, 12:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Trouble with SNGWizard, getting frustrated
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] i would never use the default wiz ranges. [/ QUOTE ] Never, really? It seems like they would be close once in a while just by accident. Are they generally too tight, too loose, or both? [/ QUOTE ] well, i don't really pay that much attention to them to know if they are too tight or too loose. i don't really run that many simulations, maybe just a few a week. so if i am gonna go to the trouble of running one i might as well set the ranges exactly how i want them, it only takes a few seconds to adjust ranges. i was not trying to suggest that the default ranges are bad or anything like that, i just think if you want to run anaylysis you should select opponent ranges as good as can and go from there. using default ranges just seems silly to me. also, it would be great if you could add the following feature. say 4 haned, you raise UG with TT, bb pushes, and then you should be able to adjust villians hand range and see if calling is correct. can you add that? thx.
|
|
#25
11-02-2007, 12:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Trouble with SNGWizard, getting frustrated
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] i would never use the default wiz ranges. [/ QUOTE ] Never, really? It seems like they would be close once in a while just by accident. Are they generally too tight, too loose, or both? [/ QUOTE ] You should never use the default ranges in an ICM type calculator. It makes people lazy, the more accurate you guestimation of villians ranges are the more accurate your ICM result will be. Also put people on actual range not on top 15% or top 10%. Some villians will call with any Ace yet fold 22-44.
|
|
#26
11-02-2007, 02:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Trouble with SNGWizard, getting frustrated
[ QUOTE ]
1. You have almost 8 big blinds, so you are not desperate. Stealing the blinds does not increase your equity significantly. 2. You are pushing into 3 opponents. There is a significant chance you will get called. 3. Opponent stacks are almost equal so losing a showdown is a disaster. 4. Folding actually increases your equity due to the chance that somebody else will get eliminated. Taking all these factors into account, I think you have to play pretty tight here. That said, pushing 99 is +$EV. The Wizard recommends a fold because it is slightly less than the default edge. [/ QUOTE ] Meh, pushing 99 here is really standard for me and several other players who all do very well, all of whom are easily pushing wider than this as well. There are a number of other spots similar to this on the bubble where it suggests a fold that are standard pushes for me. Anyways, it just frustrated me that there are spots that have always been been very standard pushes for me and every other reg I know that SNGWiz is telling us to fold. Wasn't trying to bash the product or anything, I think overall it's pretty awesome.
|
|
#27
11-02-2007, 02:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Trouble with SNGWizard, getting frustrated
Pushing 99 there may be standard, and it's definitely +$EV against any reasonable calling ranges and potential action if you fold, but you should know that it is very thin. You can use SNGWhiz to find that TT is an easy push, 99 is close, and 88 is definitely a fold.
|
|
#28
11-02-2007, 02:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Trouble with SNGWizard, getting frustrated
[ QUOTE ]
I'm demo-ing version 1.0.1.80. Should it be glitch free? [/ QUOTE ] No software is glitch free. The current release is 1.0.1.84. Depending on which site you are playing, the problem may have been fixed.
|
|
#29
11-02-2007, 02:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Trouble with SNGWizard, getting frustrated
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] i would never use the default wiz ranges. [/ QUOTE ] Never, really? It seems like they would be close once in a while just by accident. Are they generally too tight, too loose, or both? [/ QUOTE ] well, i don't really pay that much attention to them to know if they are too tight or too loose. i don't really run that many simulations, maybe just a few a week. so if i am gonna go to the trouble of running one i might as well set the ranges exactly how i want them, it only takes a few seconds to adjust ranges. i was not trying to suggest that the default ranges are bad or anything like that, i just think if you want to run anaylysis you should select opponent ranges as good as can and go from there. using default ranges just seems silly to me. also, it would be great if you could add the following feature. say 4 haned, you raise UG with TT, bb pushes, and then you should be able to adjust villians hand range and see if calling is correct. can you add that? thx. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with what you are saying. I think default opponent hand ranges can save time, but I try to caution users to always review the default hand ranges. Your request is already on my to-do list, but it probably won’t happen until after Release 2 is published.
|
|
#30
11-03-2007, 08:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Trouble with SNGWizard, getting frustrated
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] i would never use the default wiz ranges. [/ QUOTE ] Never, really? It seems like they would be close once in a while just by accident. Are they generally too tight, too loose, or both? [/ QUOTE ] You should never use the default ranges in an ICM type calculator. It makes people lazy, the more accurate you guestimation of villians ranges are the more accurate your ICM result will be. Also put people on actual range not on top 15% or top 10%. Some villians will call with any Ace yet fold 22-44. [/ QUOTE ] I also think It would be nice to be able to type in the specific hands instead of just 10%, 15% ect. It could be a different mode perhaps? Where the ranges are left blank and you can type them in yourself
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
