Also how can we deal with "tweener" hands that could be a 4bet / call all-in, could be just a call to a 3bet and unlikely to ever be fold e.g AQs....

I can't ever be good to fold AQs (unless against extremely tight 3 betters), but it would be useful to know when the maths says it is ok to 4bet / shove and when it should just be in our calling range. Is this possible in the find equilibrium example?

Edit: I should make clear my last 3-4 posts are in relation to the find equilibrium example contained in this file

www.cardrunnersev.com/rar/findequilibrium.rar

i.e there is a 4bet, call and fold range against the villains 3bet (not the example on the youtube videos where there is just 4bet or fold).

In the current approach you don't have any control over the composition of the bluffing range. I can think of one way to do that, but it would probably be too much effort.
However, a much easier way to manipulate the solution would be to just move hands around as you see fit; I don't really see a great amount of harm in that. Just make sure you don't change the bluffing frequency and you should be fairly close to optimal. Card removal will slightly screw things up though, so once you start messing too much with the solution, you'll drift away from the equilibrium. However, once again, I don't see this turning in too big of an issue.

There's an infinite number of ways for the bluffing range to be made up. After all, they're just bluffs. The frequency is more important than the content.
In the approach I advocate, hands should be raised either 100% of the time or 0% of the time. I discuss this in the video series on unexploitable shoving.
However, that's not the only way. It's perfectly possible to reach the same/similar result by having a wider bluffing range with weights attached to the hands. Figuring out to composition of this range will be very tricky though, due to card removal. Best+easiest stick with the 100% or 0% approach imho.

Tweener hands are just thát.
Tweener hands.
So it doesn't really matter if you do one thing with them, or something else.
The actions you're trying to decide between both give it a very similar EV.
I wouldn't get too overobsessed about assigning them perfectly.
Just use the tweener hands depending on your image.
If your image is tight, then start pushing them more.
If your image is loose, then just fold them.

In my experience, what you do with tweener hands has practically no influence whatsoever on the total EV of your strategy. So just assign them as you see fit. It doesn't really matter anyhow. That's the whole essence of a tweener hand.

I'm about to go to bed.
I'll take another look tomorrow.
It sounds like if you write the script to go over several calling ranges, it should be able to give an idea of how to assign AQs.


PS: Really tired. I'll take another look at these posts tomorrow. Not 100% sure if I answered correctly.

How come it isnt possible to select specific combos in a range preflop? I really need this function

the problem is that I want to analyze a river decision, I'm trying to find equilibrium in an action and I'm using SelectAllHand in script, which select all preflop hands. I need specific combos, like flushes etc.

The software treats hands just like they are in real life.
So you can't filter for suits before the flop.
After all, you don't do that either in a real hand.
It's only once the flop is known that you can start playing differently according to the board.

It's always recommended to start a hand preflop and play the hand normally. Should you however insist on starting postflop, then just start at the turn and filter there.

Why is that? I usually start the hand at the street I'm interested in.

Because if you just enter the hands there's a decent chance that you overlook something. You may forget to add hands, or you may accidentilly add hands that would never have made it past the preflop/flop/turn. Imho it's just better to properly simulate the entire hand.

But if I'm going make so the script simulate hands, like top 1% ev. Then I have to select all hands, EV run, and then top 1%.

Then the script will select PREFLOP-range hands. Is it possible to select postflop hands and then 1% top ev? Because I really need to select specific combos otherwise it won't work.
Because it's a river decision - is it possible to make turn action check/check, and then set the ranges there with more specific combos. And then on the river action, do so the script select all turn hands and take the top 1% ev, etc etc

The top % operation also works postflop, so I see no issue there.

Hey, I mostly play FL. It's usually turn where I start, and every hand makes it past the flop

Ok thanks!

I've got some problems with my tree. I don't know if it's a bug or if I've done something wrong.

I send you a PM with a screenshot and the script

I am putting some thought in trying to understand your std and variance numbers after a MC run.
I found the above post in this thread.

Firstly, related to the variance number (2nd number, measure for spread but in reality calc as stdev)
If I try to calculate the variance (meaning stdev of the spread in results) = sqrt(((1.075-13.5)²+(1.075-22)²)/2)
i get 17.2 as result.
What am I doing wrong?

Secondly, related to the std (first number, measure for error of MC run)
Is it correct to say that your MC calculated EV value is following a normal distribution? Meaning, is it correct to do the following interpretation?
68.27% chance EV lies between 4.02 +- 0.15
95.45% chance EV lies between 4.02 +- 0.30
99.73% chance EV lies between 4.02 +- 0.45

Ok, I've answered your PM.

Well, that's a 4 year old post right there, and I seem to be getting 16.9 now instead. Not sure why. Anyhow, there's two things that you definitely need to do differently:
1) 22 is a negative number. So it should be -22-1.075.
2) The weight of 13.5 is 65% and the weight of the -22 number is 35%

So it should be sqrt((1.075-13.5)²*65%+(-22-1.075)²*35%)=16.9.

Why is it suddenly 16.9?

Not sure.
Maybe it's a rounding error.
Maybe it's an estimation error due to it being monte carlo.
Maybe I was in a hurry at the time and made a mistake when calculating that number.
Let's chalk it down to a mystery.

Pretty sure it's not since the possible outcomes don't have a normal distribution.

It's undoubtedly close to that, but normal distributions are rare.
Distributions that look a lot like them are pretty common.
Treating a distribution as normal usually makes things a lot easier to work with.

Hi Scylla
Just some feedback/improvement ideas.
I really think the postflop condition menu should have a "matrix option" like in the previous version.
Because at the moment, it can be difficult to select really specific hands like for example i am really struggling to pick up backdoor flushdraws of the offsuit kind. Like say the flop is 8s5s5h i want to select AsXo i cant do that as far as i know (or can i? if i chose Ahi + bd fd it would give me the ones im looking for sure BUT i would get Ah2s too for ex.)
so what i do is I open equilab/pokerstove then pick up the hands, copy them and paste them into CREV in the "Range" option. its tedious.

also, it would be great if once you added a postflop condition the software generates the according range "into words": like say i chose "> trips" in the previous example the soft generates it into the "Range" condition in the postlfop menu. this way we can copy/paste the range somewhere else, to a friend, modify it more precisely, etc.

cheers
Ben

Just go to Range and enter Axs.
For a complete sumup of the Syntax, click on the "Syntax" button that's available in the "Range" dialog.

That's not going to work, since it would require creating an extremely complex syntax. No one will understand it, and thus, no one will use it.

Those answers helped already, thanks.
Do you want to share how exactly this error on the EV (related to first std after EV during MC run) is calculated?

This can certainly give some insights given the absent normal distribution as I am trying to visualize how a MC generates 'errors' caused by not enumerating all possibilities.

I'm afraid I don't discuss algorithms.

I'll just put it differently.
To all intents and purposes you can consider it as a normal distribution.

Just like anything else, such as:
- blood pressure
- people's heights
- marks on a text
it's not exactly normally distributed.
But anyone other than a mathematician would probably be ok with calling it that anyhow.
It´s just close enough.

no it gives me the suited aces. im looking for 1 card NUT backdoor flushdraws like AsJd, As7h etc.

Thanks for your answers, too bad for the syntax problem.

In that case, under range, enter "As" and "Suited: No" (there's other ways to accomplish this as well; this is just one of many variations).

Oh alright thats great! didnt know i could just right one card in the range.
Cheers

CREV beta 2.8.6

but there's no Tournament info in settings

Ok, thanks for pointing that out!
I'll take care of it for the next update.

Hey, Scylla, I`ve just started to study the manual, and in the beginning when you`re adding a new condition preflop you write "...move your mouse over the gray text add condition and left-click"... but there isn`t "add condition", there is "edit condition", and I can`t add condition, when I press it I can only add hands to the range I have...

This is for the beta right?
Things work a bit differently there for some features.

Here's a link to the updated manual (not yet available):

Preflop
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc0t_Bt0iks

Postflop
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sET1JECtOlI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6Z4I725-Rw