Quote:
Originally Posted by scylla
Ok, I've received your savefile.
It sure makes things a lot clearer.
See pic below for a screenshot of that tree
Now, the issue becomes a lot more clear when we're able to perform an EV run in this tree (F7), since this will allow for popups. However, currently this is not possible, because the tree is incomplete. For that reason, I've just made BB openfold the turn. It ain't pretty, but the tree is complete and we'll be able to perform an EV run (F7). See pic below:
And when we now, for example mouse over >=2pair we get a popup that shows which hands specifically are in that condition. Press Alt+C to toggle to combo mode and you'll see how many combos there are of each hand.
So, there's a total of 109 combos in total that are considered as >=2pair. Given that there's a total of 47*46/2=1081 ways of dealing BB a hand out of "all hands", this means that the frequency for >=2pair should be 109/1081*100%=10.1%.
If you want to see how the software arrives at the other frequencies, then just do the same thing and mouse over the appropriate condition to see the number of combos in it.
If you want to know why QQ+ is considered as beating 2 pair on this board, then please read my previous post on that (#2623).
PS:
Card removal with combos only work if SB is dealt one specific hand. If SB holds a range, then card removal is ignored.
Ok, thanks for the answer. First part of my question namely how the different hands are placed with each filter is confirmed.
I can also understand your reasoning.
To summarize till now; the following is as CREV works:
filter >=2p -- at paired board (no flush, no street)
all pocket pairs of same rank as the ranks @ board
all pocket pairs with rank > highest rank @ board
all AB hands where A and B are the 2 ranks at the table
all Hx hands with the rank of H equal to the rank of the pair @ board
NO Lx hands with the rank of L equal to the rank of non-pair rank @ board
NO pocket pairs between highest and lowest rank @ board
NO pocket pairs with rank < lowest rank @ board
filter >=2p -- at board with 3 different rank (no flush, no street)
all pocket pairs of same rank as the ranks @ board
NO pocket pairs with rank > highest rank @ board
all hands with the 1st card a first rank at the board and with the 2nd card a second rank at the board
The following 4 not; which is obvious, expected and as the program does
NO all Hx hands with the rank of H equal to the rank of the pair @ board
NO Lx hands with the rank of L equal to the rank of non-pair rank @ board
NO pocket pairs between highest and lowest rank @ board
NO pocket pairs with rank < lowest rank @ board
Now my previous last question:
we leave the flop random and just keep the filter >=2p
It is correct that when CREV is evaluating a paired board he adds to the filter >=2p as above AND when he is evaluating a 3 different rank board he adds to the filter >=2p as above ?
Why? Because now the result is confusing. >=2p filter will not contain the following hands
NO Lx hands with the rank of L equal to the rank of non-pair rank @ board
NO pocket pairs between highest and lowest rank @ board
NO pocket pairs with rank < lowest rank @ board
Consequently, the >=2p frequency is too low when running random board
Consequently, the >=TP >= MP frequency is too high when running random board
Therefore when using random boards (meaning not split up in 1 rank / 2 rank / 3 rank boards) the results SEEM to be like normal poker language but are actual a mix of normal poker language and your other-way-of-calculating.
Now, to me this is not important because:
We know that the frequencies with my original sieve are significant different at 3 rank compared to 2 rank flops. And such I can understand that even the >=2P frequencies are too low and that even >=TP >=MP frequencies are too high and causing errors that the magnitude of this error is significant lower then the magnitude of error you get by using random flop data at 2 rank or at 3 rank boards.
Therefore, this different way of equating is another (minor significance) reason why using data from random flops cannot be used for paired boards.
Lastly, from technical point of view it becomes impossible to directly compare results from 3 rank to 2 rank boards to see to which extent TP MP ... and such hands decrease/increase in frequency of occurance because of different kind of method of calculating.
This last paragraph was actual the reason that started all those wall of text.
And I hoped there was a way to set up the filters so:
- paired boards are equated as in normal-poker language
- random boards are equated as in normal-poker language and not with a mix
But this is just a nice to have from theoretical point of view. As the discussion in this thread reminded me, made myself more clear why this is actual of no concern.
Or does there exist a way the set filters so the same filters equate as in nomal poker language 1 rank / 2 rank / 3 rank / random rank flops?