@plexiq
thx didnt saw that tool before.

I'm curious about the ranges that are displayed vs what's shown on the chart in certain situations. I've been analyzing 3-handed spots where players can limp, shove, or fold.

Quite often I'll see something like BB should shove 35% over SB's complete, but the chart it shows has ALL the hands in green, although only certain ones are selected. For example one range I have is 35.4%, 22+ A2s+ A7o+ A5o-A2o K9s+ KTo+ QTs+ QJo J8s+ T7s+ 96s+ 84s+ 73s+ 76o 62s+ 65o 52s+ 54o 42s+ 32s while the other 64.6% it says to check with. All hands in this spot (not just the selected ones) are green and at least +1. Additionally, many hands in the shoving range, like the bottom suited connectors that all are below +2, have lower EV than hands that are in the "call, don't shove" range like QTo which is +2.3 or K8s which is +2.4.

What is this really telling me? Is it saying that shoving any two is profitable and, if so, why is it saying that 32s (+1.5) should be shoved but K8s (+2.4) should be checked? Does it assume I'll make more postflop with hands it's telling me to check?

Many of my opponents limp at small stacks that I would always either shove or fold. Is it possible to analyze a hand where certain players can limp but others can't? For example, can I set up a hand to look at all SB's profitable shoves assuming that BTN can limp/shove/fold but SB can only shove/fold?

Again, looking at one such situation where all players can limp I get SB completing over a limp with 57.4%, KK+ JJ-99 33 AKs AJs-A7s AKo AJo-A9o KJs K5s-K2s K8o-K7o K5o-K2o Q6s-Q2s Q8o-Q2o J8s-J2s J9o-J5o T2s+ T7o+ 92s+ 96o+ 82s+ 85o+ 72s+ 74o+ 62s+ 63o+ 52s+ 53o+ 42s+ 43o 32s but shoving 21.4%, QQ 77-66 44 22 AQs A6s-A2s AQo A8o-A2o KQs KTs-K6s K9o+ K6o Q7s+ Q9o+ J9s+ JTo. In this case it has btn limp 0%, so the equity values on the side chart all show NaN, but certainly KK+ and many other hands in the completing range are +EV shoves.

Related question for the above ranges: Am I missing 55 somewhere? The box is highlighted in the completing range, so is it including 55 in the range 53o+? This is in math mode btw... I've definitely gotten some odd ranges with random outliers when doing Monte Carlo but that's understandable.

Assuming you ran enough iterations, hands end up in the range where they are most profitable. Note that Postflop EVs are calculated by assuming a check-down, you need to be very careful when using EVs from these non all-in lines.

If things aren't clear, manually compare the EVs of K8s from shoving vs its EV for checking - checking should be equal or higher and that's why the hand ended up in the checking range.

Sure, simply lock the SB limping range to 0% and re-calculate using the green "Run Nash Calculation" button in the toolbar.

If BTN literally has no limps (as in: never takes this line, not even some small percentage of the time) then the EV for SB is undefined for this spot. If you believe that BTN does limp then you should manually change the range. Maybe give BU 1% of every hand as "misclick" or whatever you believe he can show up with there.

Hands are included in the text range if they are played >50% in the selected action. Hands are marked in the grid if they are played at least 1% (iirc). So 55 is probably somewhere between 1...50% where it is marked in the grid but not included in the text range. Hover over the hand in the grid to see the played %, is right click and switch to "Display Strategy" mode.

---


Just to re-iterate my warning from earlier: Please be careful when using the limping / caling options like this, they assume full check downs after the Flop. These options are intended for setting up previous actions, e.g. BU opens and SB flat called, should i push or fold this as BB? You can find more details in the "Advanced Hand" section of "Help: Help Contents".

As you know I'm a bit of an ICM "truther"

I'm fine using FGS for shove/fold spots (I think they're called basic hands) - but not really happy with the options for advanced hands with raise/shove etc.

User defined ICM models would be ideal, but failing that, I would welcome the option to use FGS for advanced hands too - even if the later stages in the tree were based on simple shove/fold hands. Hopefully that should be something fairly easy to turn on. I would resubscribe if that was there.

You can already use FGS for advanced hands, everything past the current hand is simulated as push/fold though.

I'm not sure how feasible it would be to run the FGS simulated hands with other betting structures, that'd be extremely slow in comparison.

Oh great. I thought that wasn't possible. Is it a new feature?

FGS has been enabled for advanced hands for a while now, at least a couple of years I think. There is a bunch of other new stuff in the latest version that you may like, including Monte Carlo mode with full card bunching support.

If you haven't used HRC on your computer in the last 6 months you can simply register a free trial again.

Hey!!!! Good Morning I need Help to Clarify this doubt.
For the calculation of normal ChipEv situations in KO tournaments, do I have to make any variations when copying the hand? or does HRC automatically take bounties into account? Thank You!!!
https://gyazo.com/8bf6f0be8440c48e8a861a37e7697a31

ChipEV will calculate plain EV in chips, it doesn't consider any prize payouts or bounties. For bounty calculations please pick one of the $EV models (ICM/FGS/MTT).

I'd recommend you always enter the actual payout structure, but if you believe ICM effects can be ignored then simply enter the total regular prize pool as first place. Don't forget to generate stacks for other tables in case you are at the beginning of a tournament.

You can find a short example of a bounty calculation in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3Wwpmk0bGk

Really Thank You!!!!!!!!

Thanks for this and the other responses so quickly and in such detail.

Hi,

Watching this vidéo from runitonce: https://www.runitonce.com/poker-trai...t-poker-theor/ i use the routine introduce in it.

It lets you train your jamming skill by creating a bunch of fake hands.

I have two wish of improvements from HRC:

Could it be possible to save a set up of hands and later come back to it? (And avoid recalculation and entering details for each hand - in my setup i need to prepare 6 basic hands and doing it each day is tedious)

Could it be possible to renames the hands ? (on the panel having them names 'hand 1', 'hand 2', ... is not easy to know which is the calculation you need and simply being able to rename the approrpriate tabs would be of great help)

Thanks in advance

Yes, both save/load and renaming of hands are planned for the next beta cycle. I'll post instructions here as soon as we have a new beta version ready.

Is there any way to save calculations? I feel like I'm missing something but I don't see any way to do that.

I'm still new to HRC and didn't really run any serious calcs until lastnight. After a couple hours of running things I realized I had no idea how to save the work I'd done.

Hand: Share Hand and Hand: Export Strategies are the only ways to save results at this time. As mentioned above, local save/load is coming soon.

I didn't see the above messages, but that's good to know. However I did try the export but it never worked. Tried it a few times and got an error, like the server was down maybe.

Anyway, I'll try it again next time.

Thank you for the reply
Do u have any idea for the when ?

I have a bit of noob question.

Why are some hands selected in the strategy view of the range viewer even though their EV is lower than others?

For example below, the EV of KJ > JT, yet strategy shows JT should be played 95%? Same for 33 vs 55

This can have a number of reasons.

For basic push/fold hands this always means that the Nash calculation didn't fully converge. This can happen if the default number of iterations isn't sufficient for your calculated scenario, or if you manually changed some ranges later. You can quickly verify the quality of your Nash approximation in the "Outline" area: In a real Nash Equilibrium all "Exploit%" values have to be zero.

To fix this, simply use the "Run Nash Calculation" button to improve the Nash approximation.

For advanced hands this can occur even if the calculation is fully converged:
1) If this is not the first action of this player in the current hand: For instance if we are looking at a call-off range against a 3-bet shove, the call-off range can't contain any hands that were folded earlier in the hand, ie that weren't in the original opening range.

2) If multiple actions are available: Several actions may be +EV for a given hand compared to folding, but the hand will only be played for the action with the highest EV.

Can't give you any fixed ETA, but save/load is one of the top priorities for the next beta cycle. I don't know when we'll have the next beta ready for public testing, probably sometime before the summer.

Thanks!

Hi, I'm trying to purchase a license but every time I click on the order button it says it cannot be processed.

"We regret that your payment or order could not be accepted. There are many reasons why this might occur. We value your business and would like to help you complete this order. Please contact us for assistance."

I have sufficient funds in the account fwiw.

That may have been a temporary issue of the processor or something specific to your card. Please contact me at support@holdemresources.net and I'll look into it.

Hi,

I've tried to set up a ICM Calculation for a played Mega satellite with 668 Tickets, 759 players left.

I loaded the HH from stars and get the stacksizes and blindlevel for my table. Thereafter I opend the specific hand from the Import Tab by rightclick. I managed to set 668 prizes á 109$ and selected the Hand mode "Math" and furthermore the Equity model "Multi table 'ICM'", but when I clicked next I got lost by setting up the chip stacks of the other tables. I saw that it is possible to set random stacksizes for the other tables but this didn't show the reality. In case that there where that much tickets in prizepool all players got tight and I was with 7BBs place 590 that means places 591 to 759 were less than 7BBs.

So I created random stacksizes with the "double plus" symbol in the stack table. Therafter the graph was shown with the chips over stack percentile. I assume the last 80-100 % has to be lower because there were a lot of shortys... Anyway I also noticed that I am able to select more rows (by select with mouse and press shift) but when I selected decrease by 5,000 for example, nothing changed. Is the decrease or increase by option the value in total or decrease every stack in the selection by this value? What does it mean if the amount is shown in red figures?


Finally I just made a calculation with the random given stacksizes... The calculation showed that every player should shove any two? Could this be true?

I hope I could clarify my problem, maybe someone has an idea. Thanks

I'm not sure what you mean by the last part. The way you can setup stacks is:
1) Auto generate them like you did. Try playing around with the shape parameter if you need to change the generated distribution. You can also try ticking the "randomize" checkbox and try a few times until you get a sample that looks right for your game. Note that the exact stack sizing usually doesn't make a huge difference for results as long as you get the chip total and # of players right.

2) Alternatively you can modify / add / delete stacks manually by editing the cells, but this is something more useful for 2-3 tables remaining tables and probably not suitable for a field of 750ish.

668 tickets and 759 players remaining sounds like it should play pretty tight, so seeing a lot of any-two shoves wouldn't surprise me. (As always, keep in mind that HRC will assume optimal calling ranges. If players in your game are calling wider than suggested then you should edit those ranges and re-calculate.)

Try generating the other stacks with different shape parameters (note the auto selected value and tune it up / down a bit), check if that makes a difference for results.