We don't really disclose any such information, so unfortunately I won't be able to answer that question.

I can't say that we've ever considered such a feature, given that it's not directly relevant to decision making.
That's not to say that it would not be interesting though, so I'll see what I can do for future releases.

Thank you for the feedback,

Scylla

It is very relevant to decision making when deciding whether to value bet the river or not OOP

Can you think of some sort of quick work around to check which hands have enough equity vs the calling range to value bet?

Hi

Looks like no errors were here. I removed several bets and left options
0.5p, 1.5p, 5p, check. It counted that 1.5p is preffered sizing. Prob it's actually the optimal desicion.

I have an idea about the speed of calculation process. I think you know that crypto miners use GPU (not CPU). Prob it's possible to load any sub-trees to GPU ?

It might be, however, once again, if you want me to take a look, then please send a savefile to support. The different lines will only make sense if the continuations after they are taken are similar. Unfortunately I can not tell whether or not this is the case from just the screenshot.


The calculation that needs to be performed on the subtrees are rather complex, whereas, to be best of my knowledge, GPUs can only be used to perform relatively simple calculations. It may still be worth looking into at some point though.

If this is just a regular tree, as opposed to a tree with GTO data in it, then you can use a delete action to remove all actions other than the call action (see bottom pic). After that, compute with F7, mouse over the player's bet action that you're interested in and press Alt+A for the old range analysis tool. This will give you the equities for all of the hands versus only the hands in the call action. The reason why this trick works is because the delete action will retroactively remove all scenarios where villain did not call.

However, please do note that this is actually not relevant to your decision making process.

For an example, see the top and second pic. In the first BB's EV is 1.79 with SB calling with >=tp. However, when SB only calls with >=quads (second pic), then BB's EV becomes 39.64, which is a much higher EV, despite the fact that SB's calling range is far stronger. This is because in the second scenario SB folds 99.7% of the time, with BB winning the pot of $40. So, not only is your equity versus the calling range important, but the money you make when villain folds is important as well. It's for this reason that you actually need to look at your EV when playing versus villain's entire strategy, as opposed to looking at equities.

is it possible to make the solver round strategies to certain increments? is this in development? i constantly find myself looking at spots, write down what i think is optimal for each part of my range, only to find the solver producing a very mixed strat. i was wondering if there is a way to translate the results to something more practical in certain spots.

I don't know what point you're trying to make here. Obviously if villain is folding 99% our bet is going to have a high EV.

I have already set the IP players calling range. I need to know the EQ of OOP's hands vs the calling range, so I can value bet hands that have around 50%+ equity vs the calling range, and decide on a balanced bluff range.

Ah, ok, in that case I somewhat misunderstood your question.

The direct answer to your question remains the same though. We currently have no dedicated feature for this, and I can look into providing one, however, for the moment, I can offer the following workaround:

1) Add a "Delete all hands" action below villain's "Call" action (see pic below)
2) Compute (with F7)
3) Mouse over hero's "Bet" action
4) Press Alt+A for the old range analysis tool (see pic below)

This tool will now give you the equities versus the calling range.
You can even use it to select a top+bottom% of the range.
For this, adjust the sliders like in the picture below.





Please do note though that you don't need as much as 50% equity to justify a shove, given that the pot offers an overlay. For example, if the pot is $40 and the stacks are $50, then shoving and getting called will create a pot of $140. You will only need to win the showdown 50/140*100%=36% of the time in order to justify shoving and getting called.

Other than that, I'd like to point out that the GTO solver can actually figure out the mathematically correct answer to your question. For example, you can use it in the tree below to figure out a GTO solution:



However, you can also enter your assumptions about villain's play, lock it to the solver and then let the solver figure out the solution within the given restrictions:



From what I can tell, betting ranges on the river tend to be polarized between value bets and bluffs, with middling hands often being checked, and it appear that this example hand is no exception.

To take a look at the ranges generated by the solver, please use its analysis tool (mouse over the relevant decision/action and press SPACE). For more on the GTO solver, the analysis tool, the locking system and other related subjects, please watch the videos here: http://www.cardrunnersev.com/download.html

Here is a link to the savefiles: www.cardrunnersev.com/savefiles/savefiles.zip



PS:
Please do note that the delete trick will not work in conjuction with solver data, given that they are not designed to work together. You can use the Delete trick with regular conditions though, like in file1.stx. Or also in file3.stx, given that there villains' actions only contain regular conditions.

I've run some tests with this to see if the solution converges if increments are used, and this was unfortunately not the case. At a certain point, the solver stops converging and starts oscillating, often relatively far away from the solution.

An alternative here would be to round mixed strategies to certain increments after the solver has completed its task, however, personally I think that this is something to avoid. One reason is that by doing so, we would be substituting one system that's very hard to understand with a different system that's still very hard to understand. A second, more important reason is that by rounding to, for example [0,100%] increments, important information is lost. Namely, if a hand is mixed between two actions in a tree that is in an equilibrium (meaning dEV=0) then the EVs for both actions will actually be exactly the same and the player will be indifferent between the two actions. Rounding to one of the two actions would actually hide this fact.

The most important thing to take away from a hand being mixed is that the player does not really care which action he takes with the hand; the EV will be the same in either action. The frequency of the mix is not because the player is tempted more or less towards a certain action (there is no incentive), but only and solely to set up relative frequencies of hands in all lines that follow the decision. So, when a hand is mixed, the frequency of the mix is not as important as noting the simple fact that there is a mix in the first place.

We do have plans for future releases where we hopefully can make more sense out of the solutions that come out of the solver, however, in my opinion, rounding the solutions afterwards is one that we would like to avoid for the moment (on the other hand, rounding while solving would be great, but, once again, as far as I've been able to tell, this does not seem to converge).

makes sense. thanks for explaining

I sent you link to stx file last night to support@cardrunners-ev-calculator.com
Is it working email, prob send to any other one (you have so many different emails as I see ))

It's a working e-mail, however, I can't say that I have received this mail.
It sounds like a spam filter has been involved here.
Can you please try sending to one of the other addresses?

I'm running into a character limit on the import program settings field. Would it be possible to remove/increase this limit in future versions?

sent to
contact@cardrunnersev.com and support@cardrunnersev.com

One thing I wanted to ask you for several monthes but forgot each time. Here big problem with importing files from KO tournaments. It does not work. And I need to edit manually HH text by temoving some strings and transforming HH as it was freezout. It takes time, sometimes very annoying and often impossible cause of big tireness after play.

PokerStars Hand #171594414523: Tournament #1930916414, ($10+$30+$4) -> ($44) USD Hold'em No Limit - Level I (15/30) - 2017/06/10 18:30:35 MSK [2017/06/10 11:30:35 ET]
Table '1930916414 5' 9-max Seat #2 is the button
Seat 1: MilchoBG (4995 in chips, $30 bounty) -> (4995 in chip)
.........
and other players rows needed to be fixed manually.

Please look is it possible to fix in next release. Now so many KO tourneys

Are you only trying to import preflop predefs?
If so, then these settings are contained in the file newdefs2.txt.
Copying this file from one program to another will exchange the ranges as well.

Should you be trying to exchange one of the other settings, then just leave the predefs out of the export format:

Ok, can you mail a sample HH to support please?

Ok, I have replied to your mail. There were a couple of attachments though, which sometimes trigger spam filters, so please let me know if you haven't received this e-mail.

Thank you.

Received your email about tree, thx.

Tomorrow will send... Sunday grind.

No problem, there's no rush.

Hello, I did following:
Define preflop and Flop ranges. Then I have created a node-lock for my opponent on flop. Because I know how he plays. I know that my opponent is not playing
perfect on turn and river so I can´t use the Nash vs. Nash solution from the solver. I know that my opponent is nerver raising on turn and he calls only with top-pair or better on turn. The subtree-wizard has created a tree with a turn-reraise branch.
So in this case do I need to remove the turn-reraise branch from the turn subtree? And do I need also to define that he calls only with top-pair or better on turn?
(Like in this screenshot: https://www2.pic-upload.de/img/33359079/crev.png ).

Or should I just define a strategy for the flop for my opponent and keep the trees from the subtree-wizatd and start then the solver? My plan would be then to remove the
reraise turn tree from my opponent after I have execute the solver and then I could check-out which hands are still +EV from my Nash solution.

I´m dont know which method gives me the correct results in my situation.

Yes, if you feel that hero/villain will never take a certain action, then you can just remove that branch from the tree. With the branch removed, the solver will no longer consider this action.

Yes, this will work perfectly.
By doing this, you have defined play for all possible turn runouts.

You need to go with the first method here.
Just enter any play for villain that you see fit, lock it, and then run the solver.

Thanks, that helps me already alot. But in the case where I dont know how my opponent would play on turn and river would you recommend to use just the Nash vs. Nash solution for turn and river with all trees?

Because in some spots I have not a real clue how my opponent would play so I can guess only in the blue but of course it would be good to know what the best thing is what I can do with the information that I have at this point.

I think in these situations I should just input that what I know and let the solver do the rest.

Yes, whenever you're not certain, just let the solver figure out GTO play instead. Particularly on unknown boards (49 possible cards for the turn and ~2500 turn+river runouts) I would generally recommend to just use the solver.

The problem is that, particuarly for river play, even if you feel strongly about villain's play, if you enter instructions that do not work for all possible ~2500 runouts, then the damage from this incorrect input will be much greater than assigning villain a GTO strategy instead.

An exception might be turn spots like you described in your previous post, where you're certain that villain would never raise in a certain spot, or only call bets with very strong hands. With "only" 49 possible turns, it's often possible to enter general instructions that work for all turns without risking incorrect input, provided that the instructions are not too complex or board-dependent.