It's gonna be awesome, a lot of people are waiting on an official tutorial(s). I think people don't care about such minor things like accents. After I watched your old video on PS, I didn't think neither about your English (your English is good) nor your accent. After you record a video about new beta features, could you record some tutorial about Plots please. I think many people don't know how to use this feature.

I think plots were heavily featured in one of the old PokerStrategy videos. We re-wrote the plots in the meantime and things may look slightly different now, but the data / usage is basically unchanged. I guess the missing mouse pointer made things hard to follow though, that was super annoying.

I'd say an intro about the bare basics is probably next in line, but we can revisit plots too.

Hi,

I can't seem to get HRC to use the open sizing I input. I'm running an advanced hand and trying to get it to use a 3bb open but it only does 2bb. I've had this issue before, trying to get sizes like 2.5, 3.5, etc. It always seems to round to the nearest whole number. But this time I can't even get it to 3.

Hopefully you can tell me what I'm doing wrong.

Make sure you actually type "3.0bb", if you miss the "bb" part then that will be interpreted as a raise to 3 chips, which will just be rounded up to a minraise.

for this spot:
https://gyazo.com/829bae31f9f68c1fa62a997d01c26fbe

this is the solution:
https://gyazo.com/1f4b2630466d9c4974c1c2a83eabf082

HRC doesn't have cold 4bets. Does it mean that it disregards the 3 live ranges behind completely and just assumes they fold 100%?

The default Math mode has a limit of max 3 active players, in this case the 3 live ranges would be forced to fold, correct.

You can use the Monte Carlo mode to calculate this spot and increase the active player limit to 4+ on the first page of the setup dialog.

Please check the differences between Math/Monte Carlo if you haven't used it yet:
https://www.holdemresources.net/blog...nte-carlo-mode

But even with Monte Carlo it's impossible to solve a preflop tree where more than 2 players performs the same action right? F.e. a Openraise and 3 players flat and I wanna see a BU 3B Range?

Not if you raise the active player limit like he suggests.

Actually, the bet sizing UI currently only allows the configuration of max 2 limps/calls for any single bet/raise via the checkboxes on the right side. That's not a restriction of the calculation mode, just the UI.

A calculation like this is not possible atm: RAISE / CALL / CALL / *CALL*
This works perfectly fine though: LIMP / LIMP / RAISE / CALL / CALL / 3B / CALL / CALL / 4B / ..


We'll rewrite that user interface in the upcoming beta and remove this restriction. We are just ironing out some last quirks in the new version, but I expect the beta will be available for public testing sometime next week. The betting UI changes should follow shortly after.

Thanks for the answer!

So i have been comparing monte carlo and normal mode and there seems to be huge differences.

for this spot:
https://i.gyazo.com/814675c813fc442b...c61af30071.png

normal solution:
https://i.gyazo.com/911ecf56dd9c2c75...5906b17dd6.png

monte carlo solution:
https://i.gyazo.com/3569088b8cf40d0e...631ac0b795.png

now when i paste the normal solution CO range (~30%) into the monte carlo solution and rerun it:
https://i.gyazo.com/6d2fbaecafb21b5b...2106cb6b1c.png

So as you can see these are some huge differences. Is the monte carlo better for these situations not so deep in the gametree? And could you explain why the huge differences?

Assuming you used the same settings for the equity model and ran sufficiently large samples in the Monte Carlo calculation, this would be down to card bunching. Regular calculations do not take card removal from folded ranges into account, Monte Carlo mode does consider card bunching. This can have some fairly significant effects for the late positions on a full table.

Generally speaking: Monte Carlo mode is more accurate because it considers full card removal effects. However, it can be a bit more prone to user errors, so I wouldn't recommend it if you are new to the program. (e.g. Making sure you have sufficiently large samples for the lines you are looking at, EVs not updating automatically after range edits unless you run new sampling, etc.)

I haven't used it in a few months so it may be updated but where are we at with big blind ante format? Thanks

No news in that regard, hasn't really come up a lot recently tbh. New public beta starts sometime next week, we may get it in there soon.

I'm not entirely clear on the game mechanic though, maybe you can clear that up:
Say the blinds are 100/200 with a 20 antes, 9 player table. The BB has 250 chips before posting. CO and BU go all-in with larger stacks, how much can BB win in that 3 way pot if he wins the showdown?

Same scenario, but BB has 100 chips?

Isn't it also the case that the BB ante is fixed regardless of the number of players? Part of the point is that you can colour up the chips earlier and not have stacks of useless ante chips all over the place.

In that case change the ante size in the scenario to some standard amount. Idk, 200ish?

In answer to your question, most of what I read is from a couple of years ago but there is no agreement.
At least a couple of years ago TDA was saying "pay ante first" anything left over is the big blind, so in this scenario the main point is 200 of antes, 50 each from the CO, BU, SB BB for 400 total.
The WSOP (and this was the more popular rule with players) was saying BB is posted first, anything left over is the ante. In that scenario the main pot is 100 from SB, 200 each from CO, BU and BB and 50 for the ante for 750 total.

I would suggest going with WSOP rules but have a tickbox to allow someone to change to TDA rules. Maybe people who plays these more might say it should be the other way around.

We've finally started the public beta!

Initial changes:
* Monte Carlo calculations with Postflop equity realization.
* General performance improvements for the Monte Carlo engine.
* New Range editor with the option to bookmark/save custom ranges.

https://www.holdemresources.net/blog...c-public-beta/

I have an issue with HH on GG network, I pasted HH from tourney where 2 tables left, no bounties, 3 places ITM, why it's showing 3b nai 180 while initial raise was 120? I set mR to 2bb & 3b to 8bb

there is my setup:




I forgot to take screenshot of remaining player's stacks during the game, so I chose to calulate automatically

and i got this outcome



P.s. is it possible to make position names instead of random anonymous characters???




Am I doing it right? and how to change size of 3bet to 8bb?

You entered 2.0 as open size and 8.0 as 3bet, these will be treated as raises to 2 and 8 chips, which are then rounded up to the minimum legal sizing. Please use 2.0bb and 8.0bb as sizings, it will work correctly then.

This seems to confuse a lot of users recently, we may just change this as part of the betting configuration UI update.


Otherwise the setup looks correct. We'll add an option to use the standard position names instead.

Got it, thank you. I have another question:

If i'm playing a tourney without bounties and let's say 56 people left with 9 paid places. Do I need to enter all the stack sizes from all the tables to get the correct result or I can add only all stacks from my table, what's the correct way? and if bubble is far away should I always use Multi (MTSNG/MTT) ICM model? Helmut ICM it's only for FT and bubble?

You should enter the full prize structure and generate the stacks for the other tables. You only need to know the rough state of the tournament (# remaining or # total chips) to do this in a few clicks.

Generally: Use FGS for final tables and MTT ICM for calculations with more than one table remaining. (MTT ICM and the regular Malmuth Harville ICM are identical for single table calculations, the latter one just skips the MTT setup page.)

I forgot to ask about price structure, if it's a mid stage of a tourney with 9 paid places, let's assume that prize pool 100$ spread between those 9 places, can I enter the whole amout for the 1st place instead of manually entering the all places at non ICM situation where is buble stage is far away? Thanks in advance

Ideally you should enter the actual prize structure, it will make some difference even far from the money. You can save the structure anyway.

If you don't care about ICM then you can use the ChipEV mode instead, I wouldn't recommend it though.

So if I understand correctly the new beta will behave similarly to PIO's preflop solver? It can give accurate non all in ranges for pre flop situations but only heads up

Not quite, there is no heads-up restriction. You can use the Postflop mode for any Monte Carlo calculation, even for a full table.

I'm curious, what made you think it only works with heads-up? Maybe we need to clarify that part in the blog post.