I think that these percentages are a result of the hand-conditions that you set. So if you select a call range of 54% of all hands, this will result in villain calling 54% of time and thus continuing with the hand 54% of the time..?

Double-click the condition to edit it and set the range you're looking for.
The frequency will depend on the range that you select.
For example, if you select AA as the raising range, then you'll be raising 0.45% of the time.

The top x% is measured versus the strategy that villain had in the previous iteration. As long as you take small steps in varying x, villain's strategy in thís iteration should not be dramatically different from the one in the previous iteration. And in that manner, the ranking that is used for the top x% should be fairly close to optimal (that being said, practically ány ranking for the top x% does fairly decent; even if villain's strategy would shift it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world).

If hands are -ev to bet on one street then +ev to bet on the next street does that mean if you get there with that hand in your range it is +ev to bet but it is minus ev to get there with that range? Does this mean the range which is +ev on the earliest decision point is the best range for the whole line? Hope that question makes sense.

You should always look at the earliest decision.
If that one is -EV, then you shouldn't take the line.

This probably becomes more obvious if you take a more extreme spot.

For example, see the pic below.
We have SB vs BB, who both have $100 stacks.
SB holds 72o and decides to raise to $99.
BB pushes with "all hands" and SB calls.



Should SB call the last $1?
Well, obviously yes, since he needs to put in $1 in order to contend for a $199 pot. This is a massively +EV spot. Folding here would be a mistake.

Should SB raise to $99 with 72o?
Obviously no, 72o is a horrific hand.

But SB has a really profitable call in the end! Doesn't that make up for the bad push?
The only reason that SB has a +EV call in the end is because he bloated the pot with a disastrously poor raise at the start of it. After he did thát, he was commited. But he should never have made that raise in the first place.

is there a guide (written or video) out yet on how to use scripts? If not, do you have a time estimate on when that will be?

Click "Videos" on the startup screen.

I see pasita has already answered your question.

awesome, thanks

I am trying to create an equilibrium script like the one in the training video for villain to 3 bet/5 bet. In the training video itis trying to find the preflop range and the 4 bet shoving range. I need the script to hold the preflop range constant (it is a range I normally open) and have the script find the best 3 bet and 5 bet ranges assuming villain gets to use the max exploit tool. What modifications do I have to make to the script from your video? This would be give me the most value from the software because Iam trying to play as close to GTO as possible. For example, a script like that could be adapted to look at 3 barreling strategies,etc.

Many thanks!!

I think I figured it out

need some
There are 2 players, effective stacks are 25 bbs. BB holding Q9o, SB 2x raises pre, BB calls. Board is J74r. BB checks, SB bets half the pot. BB raises to 90, SB reraises to 140. So SB small reraises BB.

BB shoves all-in with Q-high and SB calls with 2nd pair or better. So - I need to know, how much does SB needs to be bluffing for BB to be profitable to shove here.
So I made this

SB reraising range is all hands, weight is variable #2. Everything else he folds. Set checkpoint to BB's next step - shoving, since I want to calculate how much can BB get here.
But when I do graph it doesn't change via variance increasing, I gues I'm doing something wrong with weights

This graph will indeed show the same outcome for each value of #2.
This is because in each situation BB is up against the same range ("all hands").
The outcome will therefore always be exactly the same.

The only difference here is how often that line is actually réached.
But that doesn't affect the EV.


Fwiw:
You should probably set the turn to random here.
Currently the calculations are performed in full knowledge of what the turn will be.

changing the turn and river to random cards doesn't change anything at all. I guess I need to change SB range at the point he small reraises BB's check/raise, but I don't know how to make it properly.
So - SB small raises BB's check/raise with a range from 1% of his hands to 100% of his hands, BB shoves, SB calls with 2nd pair or better. What's the EV of BB shoving queen high in this spot when SB raises with 1% and proceed with it, or with 50% and folds a ton after, or with 75% and so on

It's unrelated to the question you were asking, but I felt I should point it out.
If you enter the turn+river then the software will include that information in the EV calculations.
Judging from your tree, you're interested in flop play, so the turn+river should be kept unknown.

This can be done by writing a script.
Or you could do it manually.

Anyhow, for instructional videos on working with scripts, please see the videos that are linked to in the "Videos" section of the beta.

edit: problem solved

Noticed CREV's unexploitable shoving ranges differ slightly from the nash charts. 6bb deep, 94s is not included in CREV's range even though it seems like a clear shove at 0.76+ EV.

Any idea where the discrepancy comes from? Not a huge deal for practical purposes, just curious if I'm misunderstanding anything

Well, both solutions perform at $10.76, so at worst the difference is below $0.005 cents. I haven't checked which of these two solutions is the best one, however I cán tell you that if I enter the range you just gave for SB and make BB react optimally, then here's the performance for SB's holecards:



And 63s and 94s happen to be the exact cards where the alternative solution you're offering differs.

Now, this is not to say that the alternative you're offering is the worse one of the two. Finding the true equilibrium can get really tricky and you'll run into all sorts of challenges. The exact equilibrium solution is typically one where SB shoves a hand 100% of the time or folds it 100% of the time. And exactly one hand will be shoved only a percentage of the time:



Anyhow, I can't say for sure at the moment which of these two solutions is the best one. I could figure it out, but unfortunately I don't have the time. If you want to know more about the algorithm that's used by the unexploitable shoving tool, please watch these videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BLHZ6tMpr8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMhkO_eBeac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqKS-KQqIsA

They also explain the challenges in finding the éxact solution.

Thanks for the explanation Scylla, the video cleared up a lot about the equilibrium process.

I did try finding the max exploitative range for BB as you said, and it returned the same range as in equilibrium (AA-22,AKs-A2s,KQs-K2s,QJs-Q2s,JTs-J4s,T9s-T6s,98s-97s,87s,AKo-A2o,KQo-K2o,QJo-Q4o,JTo-J7o,T9o-T8o,98o), against which 94s is +EV.
So shouldn't it be included when finding the max exploitative range for SB?

No, because the second SB changes his pushing range, BB will adapt his calling range and 94s will become -EV (see screenshot above).

You can try that for yourself by editing SB's pushing range to include 94s.
Now apply the max exploit tool for BB.
And if you now mouse over SB's pushing range, you'll find that 94s performs at -EV.

BB's range is the same with or without shoving 94s (left is without, right with):


So I guess my question is why 94s' EV is listed as negative even when you're not using the equilibrium tool, when EV of shoving 94s against that range is:
- 110 + (1 - 0.538)*140 + 0.538*0.3569*240 = +0.762928

Edit: I'm getting somewhat differing EV results for all hands, so I'm guessing the hand EVs in CREV don't mean what I think they mean

Ah, I see.
Sort of my mistake there.
You previously said

and I hadn't bothered to double-check this.
94s is actually -EV in this spot for SB to shove with.

Oh, I missed this calculation.
Actually, this calculation is incorrect, because the calling frequency you're using for BB of 53.8% should actually be 55.3%.

The frequency of 53.8% is versus SB's entire shoving range.
So it's a weighed average of all hands.

If you just enter 94s as SB's shoving range you'll find that the call vs fold distribution for BB will become 55.3% vs 44.7%.

And the EV for shoving 94s and getting called becomes:
35.69%*130-(100%-35.69%)*110=-24.344

The EV for shoving and BB folding is 30.

So the weighed value of shoving becomes:
-24.344*55.3%+30*44.7%=-0.05

Ahhh right, because you have dead cards 9x and 4x and BB's calling range is relatively low on 9s and 4s, his calling frequency goes up by some not unsignificant amount.

So I should select a single hand for SB then do an EV run to get the true frequency. That makes a lot of sense, thanks scylla!

Hey
Spoke about BB defends vs a BTN minraise recently.
So, we're getting 3.5:1 pre meaning anytime we think we can win the pot >22% of the time we call right?

I have following assumptions for BTN:
- open 45%
- 4b 12ish% of the time. AK, JJ+ for the value part.
- c3bet: 40ish% http://i.imgur.com/FUrHck4.png
- folds the rest : so about 50%

I know theres like a tremendous amount of postflop information i didnt even mention but im trying to figure out a range to defend
- my 3bets
- my call

How do you model that?

Like i first tried to run a sim with the following requirements:
- midpair+
- fd
- gutshot+ using both cards
and pick up all the hands to see if % > 22% but i end up with 3betting 30% of the time like any Ax, KT+, 22+
and defending K4+, Q4+, J4+, etc
Seems v v loose to me.

How can we account for postflop oop play? maybe id need hands flopping stronger? more often like >30%?
What and how do you determine those factors.