HRC only does Preflop calculations, if the pot isn't all-in pre then calculations assume a simple check-down. This is most useful for shallow stacks which are more typical for tournament formats, but if you play cash-games with short stacks then that works fine too.

You can use the raked ChipEV mode, the rake settings can be specified in the "Model Options".

For 30bb with no antes, 2.1bb open and 3b to 6.72bb (2.1bb x 3.2) or all-in, i actually get a split of 40% 3b and 6% shove.

Hard to comment, maybe re-run the calculation and post the exact settings if anything is unclear.

Thanks man

Assuming you haven't locked villain ranges so they are also adjusting their strategy to your own one.

If you would only open a particular size with KK+ then they would respond by folding a lot. You'd make more money by "hiding" those strong hands among all the other hands you are shoving.

In real games though there are plenty of people who will either shove over you with more than what they would have called with, and also people who will know you are strong so just flat with JT, then post-flop stack off with top pair, because they've somehow forgotten how much of your range is overpairs.

Edit: Try to manually set that range of KK+ and see what the computer thinks villains will do. (also are you allowing flat calls - if so the computer thinks opponents can respond by flat-calling and checking down, which isn't realistic).

Thanks, man. It was more of a technical question.

Hello plexiq,

I have been using the green "Run Nash Calculation" button to only reset ranges after editing them. I now see after a recent reply of yours that it can be used to weed out any slightly +EV hands from the default range. I used the "Run Nash Calculation" button and had a hand go from -0.59 to +0.21... Please explain this...

This was for an ICM 2B - 3B AI calculation...

First off, if you are using the "Run Nash Calculation" option to reset ranges after editing, make sure you have the "Reset Weights" option checked.

As for the jump from -0.59 to +0.21, you may be looking at a spot where small changes in one range can have a large impact on the EVs of other ranges. These volatile spots require additional iterations to converge.

This isn't all that uncommon in high bubble factor situations or raise/fold calculations. Keep an eye out for the "Exploit%" values in the Outline, these should be close to zero. If they are not then run additional Nash iterations, in this case without the "Reset Weights" option.

Okay, thanks.

I did not change the range in any way, I just clicked the "Run Nash Calculation" to have it take out any slight +EV hands from the default range.

Concerning ICM calculations, can you please offer me insight as to what you personally consider enough +EV for these 6 max SNG situations below. I have seen poker pros say +0.03 is enough, or we want +0.05, or +0.10 in this spot... I know there are other variables such as player types and stack sizes, do not consider them here, this is just in general.


* Open Jam Full Table
* Open Jam 4 Handed
* Open Jam Bubble
* 3BJ v 2B

I am not seeing the edit option for some reason...but I wanted * 3BJ v 2B to be for full table and bubble.

Assuming the opponent's ranges are accurate in the calculation, I'd recommend any >0EV unless you have some spot specific reason to deviate from that.

If there is a "spot specific" dynamic, HRC should calculate for that if opponent's ranges are correct, should it not? Say if there is an extreme short stack in play, HRC will adjust for that... Can you give a spot specific dynamic where you recommend needing more than +0.01 EV?

In that vein, yes, HRC adjusts for it being 6 handed or the bubble but there is no general reason to want to have say +0.05 EV instead of your recommended +0.01 EV simply because it is the bubble and we want a bigger edge than if it was the 1st hand of the game?

That depends on the equity model used. ICM/MTT-ICM calculate the stack equity after the hand based on the stacks alone, these models are not aware of future positions.

A typical example where you may need to manually adjust is an ICM calculation where a short stack is in UTG. The ICM estimate for the scenario where UTG folds will not take into account that this player has to post the big blind next hand. It is correct for UTG to play some hands with <0EV here, because folding is over-valued by the equity model.

FGS will take the posted big blind of next round into account. Compare the results of plain ICM to a FGS calculation to see what edges are appropriate.

(Similarly, on the bubble with a micro stack in UTG, it may be correct for other players to be a bit tighter than recommended by ICM, because that UTG player is about to be blinded out next hand.)

The equity models all assume equal skill. If a player has a large edge over the field then passing on small +EV (ICM) opportunities can be correct, especially in the beginning of a tournament.

That's really hard to qualify though and can easily lead to players passing up too many +EV spots. I'd generally advice to stay away from that kind of adjustments unless the field is remarkably soft.

Hello, trying to solve a spot with an RFI+Flatter+Call all in with less then a blind on a PKO spot the software doesn't accept the call. Am I doing something wrong?

https://gyazo.com/8714046360f24498186c8cd60e150292
https://gyazo.com/f7c65307f7da24e8a1b19ad9da7a27b8

Creating default "optimal" play ranges is nice and easy as we just enter stack sizes and run the calculation. Most of the time we are not playing versus players playing optimal poker and thusly we are using incorrect ranges against them.

I am having a hard time with all the variables and how to properly create ranges based on them. My custom charts will be as long as my arms plugging in all these damn variables and their possible sub-variables! Please give your recommendations on these variables:

1 - Looser or Tighter Table Ranges

Should we assign a looser/tighter range to every player (which can massively change Hero's range) left to act or say just use a looser big blind range for a "Looser" table and a tighter range for the first to act after Hero's action for a "Tighter" table? With that we now have a more "average" player table conditions than "optimal" player table conditions that has not changed Hero's range massively

2 - How Many Players Still In Play

6 max SNG: I think having separate ranges for full table, 4 handed and bubble is best. I think 6/5 handed play close enough to each other

3 - Varying Stack Sizes

The best I have come up with for varying stack sizes is below (just a 6/4 handed example with variables and at best just a raw go at it without any yet offered insight)

Hero has 9BB:

6 handed -

v 9/9/9/9/9 (all equal)
v 45/45/45/45/45 (at least 5x Hero's stack)

4 handed -

v 9/9/9 (all equal)
v 9/9/5 (2 equal, 1 very short stack)
v 9/5/5 (1 equal, 2 very short stacks)
v 9/18/27 (1 equal, 1 2x Hero's stack, 1 3x Hero's stack)
v 9/18/5 (1 equal, 1 2x Hero's stack, 1 very short stack)
v 9/27/5 (1 equal, 1 3x Hero's stack, 1 very short stack)
v 9/5/5 (you get my drift...)
v 18/5/5
v 27/5/5
v 5/5/5

That last dialog page is only needed if you want to calculate a partial game tree. When you select those 3 actions you are telling the program to only calculate the EV of any actions that occur AFTER the selected ones. Calculations with the default Math mode are restricted to 3 active players. If you select that last BU call then there are 3 players in the pot and no further action is possible, ie there is nothing left to calculate.

If you want to see BU's EVs then either skip that last dialog page entirely, or select only the RFI + Flatter and leave the BU action unrestricted. The hand isn't that complex, I'd recommend you just skip the last dialog page.

If you need more than 3 active players then switch to the Monte Carlo engine and increase the player limit.

I'm not sure how useful charts will be for SNG/MTTs to be honest, beyond a few very standard ones and HU.

The classic way to learn ICM is to run calculations for the hands where you were unsure and review them in detail until you develop an intuition for the correct ranges in various situations. This takes time and work, ICM dynamics can be complex and there's no easy shortcut.

You can use the Quick Analyze feature to quickly identify hands in your sessions where you may have deviated from optimal ranges, so you can review them in detail.

Yes, ICM dynamics can be complex indeed. Can you just offer the best way to address for a tighter or looser table referring to my original post on this subject?

I don't think setting everyone looser/tighter is useful, as you noticed this will result in very drastic adjustments. You will rarely see a table where everyone is playing tight/loose, it's typically a mix that leans in one way or the other on average.

Try to pick a few hands from actual games and manually set opponent's ranges as realistic as you can, this will give you an idea what adjustments you need to make based on the player composition of the table.

Does HR has an option to load tournament(spins) history and HR would check/show all the mistakes?

Yes, you can do that.

*) Use the Hand History file import from the home tab and select one or more history files to import.
*) You will then see a list of the played tournaments / hands. Select some of the tournaments that share the same payout structure and use the yellow "Quick Analyze" button in the toolbar to have them batch analyzed. For Spins you can use a winner-takes-all structure, ie 100% first.
*) You can find additional info in the Quick Analyze section of Help: Help Contents.

I sent the request to refund subscription. But there is no reply, could you please check it.

Done, you should receive a confirmation email from FastSpring.

Is there a way to display bubble factors or risk premiums? If not would be great if that could be added.