Yes, the new and faster unexploitable shoving algorithm is a new feature in the beta (the alpha has the same feature, but it's much slower). As it turned out, there was a small bug that caused hands with the 2h to sometimes be ignored (the 2h is coded as 0). Also, there was a card removal issue that tool place when ranges were very tight which caused very slightly sub-optimal solutions.

Hello Scylla great tool, thinking about purchasing. but one question:

why dont SNG ai ICM calculations dont match with crev ai ICM calcs?

simple example:
70/20/10 from the demo 5 handed same stack sizes same Blinds, same situation:

You'll need to add a "Fold all hands" for BB.
Right now, his entire range is his raising range and he never folds (a player's preflop range is determined by which range you assign him in his first decision).
I think that should solve the issue, since all other aspects of the hand appear to be the same.

you're probably aware of this but the unexploitable shoving tool, in position, still removes the location points associated with the range and the caller's range. figured I'd mention it in case you're not aware of it.

Ah, right.
No I wasn't aware of that.
It's a special case that apparently I missed.

Thank you for the feedback!

Not sure if it is a bug or there is a reason for this, but:

PREFLOP Holecards range editor >
Text input/output >
I type Tc9c

But As result it selects just T9s and I need to select exact suits in matrix.

That is intentional.
In the preflop matrix you can not select for suits (unless you're entering one specific hand). This is because in real poker you don't select for suits in the preflop phase either. You can only filter for suits after the flop is known.

I think it is incorrect logic. Because it is not just preflop. Also it is starting point. Sometimes I want to import ranges from other programs, or sometimes I just want to work on river plan, and I select starting street as river. ANd then preflop is not real preflop, but just starting point.

I understand that troubles are in way how program is written and in that dialog it wouldn't be easy to select different combos, but importing as text and supporting would be nice (but not mandatory).

Right now I use that walkarround and if there any simplier way to do so it would be nice if you would share that with me:

I want to work on X range that I got in another program. It is list of combos.

1) I will paste that to preflop range (to reduce combinations for program to work on)
2) I will add Delete condition and I will paste that range there too. I will Use NOT operator for this so it will delete all other combos. Question: WIll it work at the same speed, if I will leave "All hands" preflop and then Delete Condition "NOT X range" ?

Not speed is important but how trials runs and how accurate results will be.
Thnx.

Hey!

I just switched to a new notebook (Mac) and had to transfer my virtual machine.
Now, when i try to open crev, i get this pop-up:



What can i do to use crev again?
Already mailed the support, but didn't recieve an answer.

Thx in advance!

Ok, I've replied to your mail about 15 minutes ago.

Thx! I just didn't get your first e.mail, but now mailsupport works just fine

This will work fine.

It will work at virtually the same speed.
I wouldn't invest too much effort into streamlining that aspect.

Well, I sent it, so it sounds like its either getting sent to your spam folder, or zapped entirely by some filter. In the future, just use any one of the backup addresses.

Scylla,

In your video (part2) about making your unexploitable shoving script, you perform the setall hands function on the SB at the beginning of the script, followed by an EV run so we can get an EV based ranking for Top function.

My question is based on what is this EV calculated? I am trying to understand why we don't SetAll hands for both the SB and BB before the EV run.

Also you get a different answer if you setall on both SB and BB prior to the EV run for using the top function. So I am assuming the EV is based on what the BB calls with. Why wouldn't we set both then?

I am trying to determine best practice for future scripting situations.

Thanks in advance.

Unfortunately this question moves beyond technical support and goes into the area of math/algorithm-coaching, which is something that I do not do. The YouTube videos on scripting are intended exclusively for explaining all of the available script commands and nothing else. The subject of equilibria is just the backdrop. I do not offer any support/coaching/other on the subject of equilibria. Just technical support.

I get the "Failed to connect to internet etc... " error (while my internet connection seems totally fine) so I cant use my CREV, iirc I have this problem since shortly after I upgraded beta 2.8.7

Well, the beta is definitely a bit more strict than the alpha when it comes to checking licenses (given that it's a beta). Could you please mail support?

Hello Scylla,

I don't need help but I have a suggestion about CRev.

Right now, when we are determining betting conditions by selecting, pair, nut FD etc.. Is it possible to decide whether or not bet with entering some percentage to add condition section ? I mean say when i enter %50 , program will automatically bet with top %50 of hands in our range. ?

The tricky part there is how to determine what the top 50% is.
It's somewhat doable when the method used is based on equity, but impossible to do if it's supposed to be done based on EV (because all the topX% commands will influence each other; when you change a range at one location, the EVs will change everywhere in the tree).

Also, in order to do this dynamically, it requires recomputing the tree for every time that you've used a topX% command.

it seems that when I run unexploitable shove (or create a script to do it), the betting player can typically exploit the calling range very effectively. usually this means betting a very high % of the time.

I understand we're not arriving at a true equilibrium and the shover is the one who is unexploitable, but if one player can increase his EV by 60%, would that indicate that we're not close to an equilibrium?

here is an example to illustrate:




so I'm wondering, is this as problematic as I think it is? If we're the calling player, then it would be very dangerous to play this strategy. Is there a better or different method to accomplish this using scripts, or is fictitious play not enough for this problem?

I didn't think I was asking you to teach me math. There is a of us that cannot figure out how the SetAll function in your software works, specifically in relation to picking top % of EV hands to terst for equilibriums and we all get inconsistant results. Given we are paying customers and you provide no documentation of how any of this works it is not an unfair question to ask what is the correct way of using your functions provided?

Why would we not set all hands for the BB in your example script? We are trying to test for equilibriums and people get weird results and no one understands really why.

Setting:
180 man Final Table 5 left i have QQ facing two reshoves, is a call or a fold +$ev?


Now i wonder what $ev calc counts for the fold/ call decision? The one in the first calc before the hand started or the one for the call at the end, i dont get this , one is -$ev and the orther is +$ev , why?


PS: still using the demo since i still dont know how to use the software correctly.

Yes, I had actually noticed the same issue myself with the new shove/check algorithm. The alpha still subdivided hero's shoving range into topX%+bottomY% and checked the intermediate hands. I think that approach worked rather well. Also, that particular strategy makes perfect logical sense. The bèta's dedicated (and much faster) algorithm works slightly differently, and no longer works based on topX%+bottomY%. I will indeed be taking another look at that algorithm to see if I can get a better performance out of it.

I think I'll need to point out here that you're currently using a beta. There's many reasons why it's in beta. One of them is that the documentation is incomplete.

When registering, you have purchased a license for the alpha.
The beta is just for evaluation purposes.

- I do not guarantee it being bug-free.
- Documentation may be incomplete.
- Support may not be fully available, due to this being a work in progress.

That's what "beta" means.
It's the entire reason to provide software in beta.
So that the developer isn't obligated to provide support on features that are in development.
The beta is just there to show users what is being produced and to get feedback on bugs.

As to the videos on YouTube
I would again like to point out that the videos on YouTube are exclusively intended to explain how the script commands work. They are intended to demonstrate how the scripting system itself works. And they are intended to demonstrate what each of the available commands does.

If at the end of these videos you have understood:
- How to add/remove/change order of commands
- What each command does
- Which commands are available
then these videos have achieved the desired result.
Nothing beyond that was intended with these videos.
I was certainly NOT trying to offer myself as a free tutor on writing algorithms.

In giving these demonstrations I used some examples in order to give some practical context. I have used the following examples:
- How to create your own graph
- How to create your own unexploitable shoving algorithm.
- How to solve for equilibria.

These examples were used for no other purpose than to give context to the subject of scripting.

I was NOT trying to start a discussion on how to solve for equilibria. I was just trying to make a fun video and introduce people to the concept of programming. It's not possible for me to coach people in a subject as complex as finding equilibria.

The videos on YouTube are the only thing that I have to say on the subject of equilibria. I provide no coaching or anything else beyond that.

Fold "all hands" still needs to be added
You will first need a "fold all hands" for Cutoff and Button.
Right now you're only looking at the sceneario where both Button and Cutoff have a hand that they're willing to stack off with.
So, you still need to add the other scenarios as well where they fold.

But which decision should I look at?
Other than that, when you're trying to figure out which decision to look at, it's always the first one. So in this case it's -EV to raise QQ. The fact that it's +EV later on in the hand to stack off with QQ is not relevant. For example, please have a look at the pic below:

SB raises to 60 with 32o and BB shoves "all hands". Getting 4:1, SB will now make a +EV call for $24.61. However, SB had to invest $59.50 (he raised to 60 but had already posted 0.5) in order to get into this $24.61 spot. So in fact, his raise to 60 loses him $24.61-$59.50=-$34.89. The only reason why his final call is +EV is because he has bloated the pot earlier on in the hand. The money he wins with his call is only $24.61 out of the $59.50 that he put in in the first place.