SNGPT Question

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Do I only need to type in people who act after me? Does the EV change because people have folded before me? Why or why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

First thing to note is that you can read in from a hand history file from Party or Stars; this can save a lot of time.

If you are entering hands from 2+2 or some other source, then yes, you have to put in everyone's chip count.

Say you're on the bubble, have the button, and UTG folds with blinds 100/200. You with 1500 chips have the decision to push into SB and BB who have you covered. Do you think it matters if the guy UTG who already folded has 5 chips or 5000? You bet it does. It matters a lot. If he has 5 chips you're almost guaranteed the money by just folding, if he has 5000 you need to pick up chips to make the money. SnG Power Tools accounts for this effect, so it needs to know who has how many chips.

eastbay

[ QUOTE ]
First thing to note is that you can read in from a hand history file from Party or Stars; this can save a lot of time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you read in a hand that is red in the tournament history? (Suppose, for instance, you wanted to adjust the betting or blinds to examine a hypothetic situation based on a real hand.)

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First thing to note is that you can read in from a hand history file from Party or Stars; this can save a lot of time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you read in a hand that is red in the tournament history? (Suppose, for instance, you wanted to adjust the betting or blinds to examine a hypothetic situation based on a real hand.)

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I don't think it's a good idea to have the hands be read in "wrong" just so they can be analyzable. That would be pretty confusing.

I may give an option at some point to just read in chip stacks on non-analyzable hands, but it will require a hoop of some kind to prevent confusion.

eastbay

[Guthrie]

What constitutes a non-analyzable hand?

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
What constitutes a non-analyzable hand?

[/ QUOTE ]
A hand that wasn't folded to you. Or that doesn't have an opponent pushing into you.

[Guthrie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What constitutes a non-analyzable hand?

[/ QUOTE ]
A hand that wasn't folded to you. Or that doesn't have an opponent pushing into you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks. So is it safe to assume that ICM is only useful in these two situations?

[tigerite]

No. ICM is useful for all situations - look at the huge bloody maths I did the other day for instance! But SNGPT only handles simple ones. I do wish that eastbay would add at least a 'call a re-raise all-in' option as that's pretty easy, but he hasn't so far.

[splashpot]

As long as you could accurately put your opponent on a range, ICM should work for all situations. But lets say you have a limp, a min-raise, a cold call, action to you. Look at all the ranges you would have to calculate. Even if you were to guess those ranges, there would be a huge margin of error.

[ QUOTE ]
So is it safe to assume that ICM is only useful in these two situations?

[/ QUOTE ]
ICM is independent chip model, which is a way of assigning equity to chip stacks in a SNG (or larger tournament, I suppose). I point this out because I think a lot of people confuse ICM with the whole process of analyzing an action (usually a push or call decision). ICM is used to evaluate the equity position before the action and after the possible outcomes, but ICM isn't involved with the middle parts. ICM is not the only method for estimating equity.

[bluefeet]

I notice sometimes that that isn't always the case. I periodically have hands that are in red, where I was opening - everyone having ample chips as well. I've wondered if this was just a clitch, or if there were some unknown factors.