Any chance of publishing the code for this converter?

Sure, it's provided as-is, and I make no promises about its correctness or anything else:

http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=cBGKqmfz

Looks like the filenames are hard-coded, so you might need to edit that...

Thank you.

Hey. I dont know if this is fixed later in the video pack coz i havent started to watch range video yet but here is the problem about equity array video.

If i run
on a unknown board it works all fine but if i run it again on a board that is saved in that array i got this
So should i be fixing this? Tryed to replace Filename with getFilename() and there were no errors

Yes, it's fixed later in the video, exactly in the way you propose.

tnx man

Hey how is pokerstove and all those programs so small in size but they instantly can show you all the equities on any flops? We have to wait a lot of time compared to those programs to get some equities on a single board and when when its done it will take a lot of space in memory. So how are those programs written to work so fast and take so little memory?

Well first you might be confusing size of a program itself with how much memory it uses when you run it -- they're not the same thing.

As for runtime of equity calculations, we do it by first calculating hand vs hand equities for every pair of hands. Once we have this data, subsequent range vs range equity calcs are very fast. Generating that array is slowish, but since it's something we only have to do one time ever (it's automatically saved to the hard drive in case we need it later) I don't think it's worth worrying about.

Pokerstove is open source, so if you want to know how it works, go look .

Im having huge problem again. I just typed all Range class but when i try to run it i dont get table with all the card names

instead im getting this
Any ideas why is it?
NO WORRIES THIS IS FIXED BUT ILL SOON POST THE NEXT PROBLEM

OHH TNX GOD THERE IS NO NEXT PROBLEM YET . ALL GOOD

So I'm thinking perhaps the vid pack stuff might should be kept in a different thread...

Hey, so i created the thread for this video pack. Hope you like it and there is my 1st question in it already

Link ---> Video pack 2 thread

What happens if we decide to pass up small edge in situation PvBc on the river vs perfect villain (but he will not adjust to our frequencies)? As a bettor should we get rid of bluff part, as a caller bluffcatching part?

Hey guys, in Chapter 11.2.2 at the end of the chapter (sorry cant give a page number as i only have Kindle version) we talk about cbetting - we consider cbet bluffing hands that "must give up as little equity as possible".

I wonder if you could give me an example for such hands? Thanks.

What is a "perfect" Villain? Are you referring to a situation where we want to maximize winrate instead of cEV?

If you mean Villain's playing the cEV equilibrium but we think we have an edge later in the match, then yes, you're correct -- taking the breakeven-EV-but-high-variance plays lead to a lower winrate than not taking them.

I think there are a lot of examples of this in Ch 11, so maybe I misunderstand what you're asking for, but here's a simple example --

Say we're in the SB, we opened pre, BB called, we c-bet a A94r flop, BB check-called. All else equal, I'd rather continue bluffing on a blank turn with K2 than K5. I think BB c/c flop with most of his flopped 4's, but he folds them a lot if I bet the turn.

So if I check turn with those Kx hands, then K5 is going to do better than K2, since it has more outs vs some of his range (the 4s). But if I bet the turn, and BB folds his 4s, then those hands play pretty much the same. So, I'd say that K5 has to give up more equity to turn itself into a bluff, and that makes me want to use K2 to bluff more.

A more mathematical way to say this is that EV(bluff K5) = EV(bluff K2), but EV(check K5) > EV(check K2), so we should add K2 to our bluffing range before we add K5.

Hey Will.

The more I'm reading your book(s), the more I wonder. How did you come up with all those conclusions, math, ways to present information (going from small trees to more and more complicated). Did you use any outside resources in the making? Was it only game theory and math knowledge?

Has it ever crossed your mind to get out of here and be a professional player in Mexico or Canada? Would you take up the job if poker was still "big" in US?

Thanks a lot if you answer these questions.

Is it possible to get these ranges (and others, not just the ones in the 3bet pot example) in poker-stovable or CREV/Flopzilla compatible format?

Entering them manually is very tedious.
Furthermore, at some points I cannot say I know what's in there, when the shaded parts of those little box for a combo aren't to scale. Even for the suited combos, where it should be just 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4 fillings. It also left me wondering in a spot or two whether you raised backdoor flush draws or flush draws..


One more quick one. The hand examples in chapter 11 (pg 108 and onwards), KQ3, K83, A83 and 993, are those given just to get some approximate turn ranges to work with, or are those examples from full on solutions?
I ask because I noticed that on KQ3 and K83 you have no Kx in the turn starting range for the BB in the check-call line, but you do have them in KQ8 5 in chapter 13 (pg 195 and onwards).

Hey, how do we decide which hands are good enough to value bet on the flop?

So 1st we find value range and than add bluffs or do we 1st choose betting frequency and than fill it with right ratio of value hands or bluffs?

I also read this book "poker's 1%" by Ed Miler and he tells that u have to bet every street about 70% of time and than u fill that frequency with right number of hands with right ratio value to bluff

So how actaully is this? Should we choose betting frequency 1st or we 1st find value hands and than add enogh bluffs and dont care about frequency?

Well, I guess I've learned things from all sorts of places.. books, academic papers, videos, discussion forums. As for decision trees, that's a wheel that I re-invented. Trees are a common way to represent sequential games. I think a lot of things become more clear once you go through all the steps necessary to write code to actually solve some poker games, and then lots of other questions are easy to answer using the software once you have it.

Re: playing professionally, it's not something I've ever seriously considered. I think there are a lot of downsides, and it fits into my life better as a hobby.

Well, the thing is they're often mixed strategies, i.e. a lot of the ranges contain fractions of hands. So, there's no way to enter them into PokerStove, afaik. I'm not really familiar with CREV/Flopzilla.

Ah, so Kx is top pair in both cases, and in the examples in Ch 11, I didn't put any in BB's flop check-call range, but in a hand on the same board in Ch 13, I did.

Well, a couple things -- you're right that it's something of a simplifying assumption in the earlier examples. The book starts relatively simple and adds additional complexity as it goes. However, I wouldn't say the examples are really comparable. The Ch 11 ones are at 25 BB deep, while the Ch 13 one is at 100 BB deep. It's definitely a lot more reasonable to play weak top pairs fast at the shorter stack size.

Well I wouldn't say that either of those options is entirely right, although maybe the "find value hands first and then add in bluffs and dont care about frequency" is somewhat better. I'd say something like -- play each hand as profitably as possible (perhaps under the assumption that Villain will respond by trying to do the same).

The thing about "find value hands first and then add in bluffs" is -- what about the rest of your range? I.e. your checking or calling hands? If Villain responds by punishing those weak ranges, it could significantly affect your original decision about which hands to bet.

Re: "bet 70% of the time": I haven't read Ed's book -- there must be some extra context you didn't mention? It's certainly not right to say that you should bet the same frequency, even approximately, in all spots. And where did 70% come from? IME, that seems too high, even if it were possible to settle on one number. And picking a betting frequency doesn't really help you much in deciding which hands exactly you should bet anyway.

Are any of them attainable as some kind of txt (or range) dumps?
It does not matter if fractions aren't possible (convenient) to dump, just the raw ranges would work as fractions are easy to set up in CREV.

If a few of those was available as texts (the data from the range boxes you provided), it'd be very useful.


Got it.

This leads to my next couple of questions - I was interested in limped pots since they simulate deeper play (bigger SPR); however, that chapter (14.3) wasn't as detailed as the others.

I am curious, how come that the SB doesn't do any 3betting when he gets checkraised on the flop?
No cutoff equity for stacking off, no folding out semibluffs, no getting value, nothing in his gameplan.. And he has all the sets and twopairs in his range, and the boards are drawy, and there's flushdraws on two of the boards.
The only con of 3betting I can see is that he'll be able to comfortably get it in with whatever he wants on later streets with standard sized betting (ie the raise is not needed in that regard). But in even shorter play you do use 3betting, in single-raised pots for instance.

And, say they were 50bb deep in a limped pot, with ranges similar to the ones you gave there for simplicity - what are you 3betting then after getting checkraised OTF, if you are 3betting something?


Second scenario I'm interested in is again adjustments to deeper play. What'd you alter on the 765 board (chapter 14.2), for the BB, other than not openshoving on the flop, if the stacks were 100bb? Any particular ranges (ie parts of BB's range) come to mind as being different for some reason than in the 20bb situation?

Is the group still going on?

Hey Will,

I was wondering if you knew how much equity the pfr realizes (ie. his total CF) in the minraised pots? Particularly interested in K73r. Not sure if this info is in the book or not but I haven't seen it. Thanks!

Hello ladies and gentlemen,

has anyone done the exercise on p.150 already? can't figure out how to get 50% continuing range as a result when facing a 1.5pot turn probe.
Any help is appreciated! Thanks.