Limit hold'em situations are up online. This includes:

• probably awful assumptions about what hands BB would have 3bet vs. BTN, and what hands CO would have 4bet vs. BTN, eagerly awaiting revision
• implementing fixed-limit betting, big bets on later streets, remembering bet counts, capped betting, removing betting cap when heads up

I've only tried them out on my development laptop against myself. Given the whacky (to my NL eyes) ranges like BB defending with 80% of hands, I'm really looking forward to trying these out. I think they're going to be fun.

I think you missed that I said CO calls with his entire range, even AA. This is a common strategy when out of position as btn will c bet almost 100% and CO can check raise his monsters.

I think ‘always’ should be 100% to simplify things and would it be possible randomise the sometimes range between say 20%-50%? If this is a bit complicated then I would prolly say something like 33% as a hard number.

In a vacuum, flatting 77 might have higher ev than capping, however your flatting range will be so narrow that a competent villain can instantly put you on just a few hands and outplay you postflop. My strategy in that spot is to always cap or fold. There are some flatting spots, but we can get to those later.

Same as above. Also we gain initiative in position and fold out the blinds which is hugely valuable. I think the big difference between lhe and nl here is that we don’t have to fear a 4bet we might have to fold to, cos even if we 3bet 42s, we have odds to call the 4bet.

Oops, I forgot about that. (although I have played with a call 100% of my range strategy in the past.)

situation 2: Bb call vs btn raise

Ok so the adjusted range: always: 22-66, A2s-A6s, A2o- A8o, K2s-K8s, K2o-K9o, Q2s – Q8s, Q5o – Q9o, J2s – J8s, J7o – J9o, T2s – T7s, 92s- 96s, 82s-85s, 72s, 75s, 62s-64s, 52s-53s, 43s, 32s

Sometimes: 77,A7s-A9s,A9o,K9s,Q9s,QTo,J9s, JTo, T8s, 97s, 86s, 65s, 54s

sometimes should be ~40%-70% or 60% if you need a hard number.

It varies by site but I think its best to use the most common structure (which Stars uses) which is that 4 bets is the cap even when hu. (with the alternative rules, you could keep reraising in the situation you described, but let not use that format I would think)

Awesome!

btw it doesnt make a difference in actual play, but the 3 way situation is actually SB capping, not BB. BB would have a different range to the one listed.

Ok, so I just have to clarify:

• 74s and 73s are "never"s surrounded by "always"es. I think you meant "72s-75s" not "72s, 75s". Ok?
• You've removed 43s and 32s entirely
• J6o, T9o-T7o, 98o-97o, 87o are now removed

sorry i messed up there. The T9o category was supposed to stay in there.

I've had a look at my database to see how I play there for clarification.

please make:

always call: 83s-85s, 74s-75s, 63s-64s, 53s-54s,43s, T9o -T7o, 98o-97o, 87o

sometimes call: 82s, 72s-73s, 62s, 65s, 52s, 42s, 32s

I know I've muddied the waters a bit now by saying some of the 'sometimes call' is now on the bottom side of the range but I think it still works out ok.

So I have always: 66-22,A6s-A2s,K8s-K2s,Q8s-Q2s,J8s-J2s,T7s-T2s,96s-92s,85s-83s,75s-74s,64s-63s,53s+,43s,A8o-A2o,K9o-K2o,Q9o-Q5o,J9o-J7o,T7o+,97o+,87o

Sometimes: 77,A9s-A7s,K9s,Q9s,J9s,T8s,97s,86s,82s,73s-72s,65s,62s,54s,52s,42s,32s,A9o,QTo,JTo,96o,86o,75 o+,65o

If we have sometimes = 50%, then this is defending 49.2% of the time.

(You were a little ambiguous about 96o-76o, 75o-65o, so I put them in the sometimes pile.)

what makes this any better than equity training in equilab?

It' not the same concept at all.

Tell me what Equilab teaches you, and I'll explain the differences.

have you ever played with equilab?

equilab trains you range vs range or hand vs range, gives you an analysis of turn and river cards and runs the combinatrics of range or hand hitting the flop.

all without being online and need an opponent

Please add NLH HU: BB 3b, BTN calls (custom ranges would be grate)

It seems that Equilab teaches you to estimate your equity. I can see that if you trained with Equilab, you'd get good at estimating your equity against your opponent's range. But I don't see how that helps you choose a strategy, or play out a hand. A couple of examples:

• You have 35% equity, facing a flop bet. Do you call? It might be correct to call, and then fold to a turn bet. But if too much of your range has 35% equity like this, you'll be calling flop too often, and folding turn too often, which is awfully exploitable. It's much more important to figure out where your hand fits within your own range, than it is to estimate how much equity you have in the current pot against your opponent's range.
• How much equity do you need, before value-raising a flop bet? It depends on your opponent's range, and how much of it he's going to call with. How is something like Equilab going to help you spot situations where a raise will only be called by better hands? Or situations where having a raising range at all doesn't really make sense.

In fact, I don't know how you use knowledge of your equity to make a good decision in a hand. It also seems that it encourages using less than all of the information available to you. In Range vs. Range, you have the following information at the start of the situation:

• Your hand
• Villain's range
• Your perceived range

This means that you're kind of melding the hand-vs-range concept with the range-vs-range concept. Knowing your hand and your opponent's range tells you the strength of your hand. Knowing your hand and your own range tells you how your hand fits into your range, as well as how much stronger or weaker it is than it looks.

Equilab trains estimation of pot equity against opponent's current range, while Range vs. Range trains range-based thinking, decision-making, adapting to your opponent, and actual play of a hand.

I haven't used Equilab, and I guess that some people think it's quite useful. My only warning would be that making decisions based on hand-vs-range equity and range-vs-range equity, without considering how you are playing your entire range, and how the rest of the hand is going to play out, can lead to you being highly exploitable.

Remember: practice makes permanent.

I can do this. I think it would be a good one. Although you get to see this situation often playing HU, with Range vs. Range you get to see your opponent's cards after every hand, so it's much more informative. And you're still cutting out many folded hands that aren't so interesting.

Let me know what ranges you think are appropriate. Remember, the question is not simply "what range do you 3bet?" / "what range do you flat 3bets with?" You have to look at it from the other perspective:

• When an unknown opponent 3bets you, what hands do you consider that he always does this with?
• What hands do you consider that he mostly does this with, but would sometimes fold, or sometimes flat with?
• What hands do you consider that he sometimes does this with, even though it might not be a good idea?
• When an unknown opponent calls your 3bets, what hands do you consider the he always does this with, meaning never folding but never 4betting?
• What hands can you say he usually plays this way, but sometimes value 4bets?
• What hands does he sometimes play like this, but sometimes fold or raise?

My current thinking is that for each player, each hand should be given a weight from 1 to 9, with a "1" hand occurring 1/9 as much as a similar "9" hand. But in reality, you can probably make do with rating every hand as either 0 (not in range), 3 (sometimes in), 6 (mostly in) or 9 (always in). Also it's better to err on the side of wide ranges, simply because wide ranges are harder to play against.

If you give me the ranges for HU 3bet and HU flat 3bet, I'll create the situation.

By the way, in case you're wondering, this is what situation files look like. I'll be allowing user-defined ranges eventually, but to do that I'm going to write a situation editor. It's a long-term thing.

Is there some kind of other software that I need to be able to run this? I have tried to run it on my XP and Vista machines and it will not run.

Thanks

I just downloaded and tried it on an XP machine, and it worked. There two things that could possibly trip you up, but they're both probably obvious:

• You have to extract the files into a folder on your computer. If you try to run the executable straight out of the zip file, or without the other files and folders present, it won't work.
• I noticed that the console window that comes up can come up in front of the login window. Then all you see is a black box. If that's the case, just move that console window and you should find the login window.

Can you tell me more about what problem you experienced? It'll help me to know for others, too.

I swear writing this took three times as long as it should have because of your avatar. Very distracting.

I figured it out...

I was in the middle of typing out the issue, and it hit me. FIREWALL!!!!

Glad you like the avatar