Not really.

I've added a whole bunch of stuff since the latest manual and I still need to update it.
I'll do that in a few months if I'm sure I won't be changing it again in some way shape or form.
It takes a lot of effort to make a video manual and if I, let's say, choose to change the appearance of the program, then I'd have to do everything over again.

For now the only way to be aware of new features is to read the release notes in every version.

Ok then . I ask you another thing: is possible to review all hands of a sng and graph the ev of our play, then we can change our game decision and do another graph and then, compare they in one graph instead of 2?

Pfff, that would be an entirely different piece of software all together.
Sit n Go Wizard does something like that I believe.
I'd hate to reinvent the wheel.

Obv, I don't want to change it,your program is usefull :-D
I ask you because, maybe it would be possible and I don't know of it

No, I'm afraid that's not possible, however you might want to google "Sit and go wizard" for that.
That program does exactly what you are asking for in post #302.

No no wizard tells me other things...probably I have explained bad myself.
What I should said is: Is possible to make a graph like poker EV for all the hands?

That would be extremely complex (impossible in fact I think) since it would require building a bot that would simulate the behaviour of every single one of your opponents and then figure out your EV against their ranges. This would only be possible for all in moves. And that program already exists.

I'm bad explained myself again...I'm talk about EV graph when players are all in.

Oh, yes, that would be possible.
It would take me quite a bit of time though I think.
Also, it already exists, which kind of defeats the purpose.

If you are talking about juk's program...it only support sng 6-10 handed

I was talking about pokerEV.

Of course but it doesn't support sng, it's only for cash game

Scylla, would it be possible to implement something that would simulate Sklansky-Chubukov calculation?

For example, take the following model:



What I want to do is change the circled part from "call with ____ defined range" to "call *if it is profitable* to do so." What I mean is, when enumerating an EV run, the program gives me 32o for my shove in the BB, then calculates SB's equity and has the SB call (in the simulation) with all the hands for which it's +EV. Then it gives me 42o, recalculates SB's equity with his whole hand range and then has him call with the hands for which he can profitably do so, etc etc. The ultimate goal is to calculate the range with which the BB can shove in that spot profitably assuming that the SB plays perfectly against every shove.

You could kinda consider it a batch process - since we're assigning Hero (BB) each individual hand and running an EV run against that one hand. That is in fact how I would calculate this, but obv changing hero's hand one at a time and resetting SB's range to exclude his -EV calls after each EV run would take hours.

Or is there a way for me to do this right now and I'm just a ******? If not, I would LOVE LOVE LOVE this feature and I might ask for your hand in marriage. We could go out in public together!


(wrt the "resetting SB's range to exclude his -EV calls" - could you implement that automatically? Frequently when using this program I do an EV run, then edit someone's range to exclude all the hands that show up as -EV when I hover the mouse over their hands - a one-click or button thing which would go through the EV table and edit out -EV hands from the range would be awesome)

Hi Goofy,

I am indeed working on unexploitable shoving this week and hope to have it done by friday. We probably won't be so lucky though, but it should be done within a reasonable timeframe.
It's a somewhat complex problem and it's one of the reasons why I wrote the math engine (I couldn't do it with the Monte Carlo one because I need the EXACT EV of every individual holecard without it jumping to a different value with every calculation).

Cheers,

Scylla


Edit: Surprisingly, as it turns out, you must include some -EV hands in your shoving range to arive at an equilibrium between hero and villain's range. It's been a huge pain, but I've finally figured out how to arrive at the mathematically correct answer in a pretty reasonable timeframe. I think. It's not easy.

Yeah, it's definitely a mind****. I get confused every time I sit down w/ the program and try to figure it out.

wat

That can't be right. I encourage you to bring this point up to Stox guest coach, pzhon.

Now that I think about it some of the multi-player jam-or-fold approximations I've seen may have featured some hands suffering very small losses. How much -ev are we talking here? (and in what context?)

The main confusion for me arises from the fact that I'm not sure if an unexploitable shoving range and the game theory optimal solution are the same thing. I'm also really tired right now so I can't think about something this complex.

Yes it's the same. If you range is tigher than optimal then your opponent may exploit you by folding more often. And if you jamming range is wider than optimal then he may exploit you by calling more often.

In theory, in an equilibrium no shove (or call) can ever be -EV, by definition. You may find that the equilibrium should involve some mixed strategies (e.g., shove 78o 50% of the time) - if you don't allow for these then you may not find an equilibrium.

But to be honest, as long as the -EV shoves are only just -EV, then ignoring the mixed strategies should be fine (Chen's book ignored the mixed strategies for example) - it simplifies the calculations hugely.

There is only one possible answer where
- villain calls with all his +EV hands
- folds his -EV hands
- hero pushes all hands that are +EV against villain's range
- villain can not change his range in a way that increases his EV (if hero changes his range to exclude the -EV hands then villain can again change his in a way that increases his EV and has lower EV for hero than the unexploitable one)

This solution must include some -EV hands.
If not, then in all cases that I've tested manually villain can again change his calling range so that your EV is lower compared to the cases where you include the -EV hands.

Which -EV hands you choose for this can be freely chosen. You can choose a small number of very -EV hands or a larger number of slightly -EV ones. Only the +EV hands for hero are set.

To be honest I couldn't follow your previous post (almost certainly my fault, not yours). But if you think a one-shot Nash equilibrium strategy can involve a -EV play (compared to folding) then I'm convinced that your logic is wrong. By definition, a NE strategy (in a 2-player game) involves player 1 not being able to come up with a better strategy given the player 2's strategy and player 2 not being able to come up with a better strategy given player 1's strategy. If a shove is -EV then, given the opponent's strategy, that play should no longer be a shove.

In theory, when you find an equilibrium you need to allow for mixed strategies (where at least one play randomises at least one hand) otherwise you won't get convergence. You might be interested in http://www.daimi.au.dk/~bromille/Papers/aamaspoker.pdf. In practice, allowing some minor -EV plays simplifies things so hugely (at a trivial cost in terms of accuracy) that IMHO it's fine, so I don't know why I'm arguing with you. :-)

By the way, great program.

You misunderstand.

I'm not saying the shove is -EV.

Unexploitable shoving results in a positive EV for both Hero and Villain by definition.

I'm saying that the unexploitable shove (in cashgames, probably not tournaments, haven't checked them yet) strategy will consist out of mostly +EV hands for Hero.
However, I have found that an equilibrium can only be reached if Hero includes a small number of -EV hands.
If these hands are not included villain can again adapt a tighter strategy, and then in turn Hero must tighten up, etc. At a certain point villain is again so tight that Hero can shove any 2.

Some -EV hands must be included in the shoving range to arrive at a NE strategy. However, the entire shove or fold strategy is of course +EV and is the highest possible EV that can be reached against villain asuming villain knows your strategy and his correct counterstrategy.


Edit:
I'll read the article in a while, I don't have time right now. However, I can confirm that in the strategy I have in mind there is indeed no mixing. The mixing in my approach reached by "mixing in" the -EV hands. If it is possible to reach a NE strategy by using only +EV hands for hero then this would probably be the same thing because instead of mixing in -EV hands you are now giving up small +EV opportunities by not doing them 100% of the time. In either way you are either giving up an opportunity some of the time or alternatively, taking a slightly -EV strategy some of the time. I strongly suspect that if this is the case that the EV of the unexploitable shove is exactly the same.

I'm saying that in a NE, all hands that are shoved must be 0 or +EV to shove. All hands that are -EV to shove must be folded.

I don't think this is right. You're not giving up +EV shoves in the mixed strategy (NE) approach, as the hands you are mixing must have exactly 0 EV in the NE.

That was my first approach.

And as it turned out it does not result in an equilibrium.

The only way to get an equilibrium is to include some -EV hands.

If you only shove the +EV and 0EV hands then villain will always find a different calling range in the next iteration until you can shove any 2 and you start over.

Also, 0EV hands are so rare they basically don't exist.

I have to go to the gym now, but when I get back in about an hour I'll post a "study" i did on this (don't get overexited, it's nothing much, but it shows that no equilibrium is reached).