Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
GTO+/CardRunnersEV? GTO+/CardRunnersEV?

12-13-2015 , 04:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MindControl7 GTO+/CardRunnersEV?
Is there a trial version for the software? If so how long is it and does it include all features?
Yes, there's a trial version.
Just download, and you're in trial mode until, and unless, you enter a valid registration code.
No time restriction on the trial.

Check out the download page for details of how the trial mode is restricted:
http://www.cardrunnersev.com/download.html
12-15-2015 , 07:19 PM
Sorry another request - preflop would it be possible to set a preflop action range to be based on the equity against the raiser's range
12-16-2015 , 11:26 AM
Hey Scylla,
I have a suggestion for Solver which would simplify using it a lot. This happens when I am looking at a turn play for certain hand that on previous street was played as mixed strategy, so it wasnt 100% for either bet or check.Lets say a XY hand was bet 50% on flop and now on turn when Im looking at "bet" tree for a XY hand it says 45% bet. Since it is only 5% check on turn and graphics show those 45% as continuation of flop's 50% so it is actually 90% bet turn and 10% checked. Is it possible that you make solver shows it in this new % as turn play but not % from flop %.
(So XY was bet flop 50%, turn play after bet flop shows bet 45%, and check 5%, so a new graphics would show bet 90% and check 10% on turn.)
In this was we need to look at least to 2 different things(either flop bet+turn bet or look at turn bet+turn check and can be quite confusing)
Was pretty hard to describe situation but I hope you understood.
12-16-2015 , 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blunderer GTO+/CardRunnersEV?
Sorry another request - preflop would it be possible to set a preflop action range to be based on the equity against the raiser's range
I'll see if I can find the time to look into this later.
12-16-2015 , 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by galejziooo GTO+/CardRunnersEV?
Hey Scylla,
I have a suggestion for Solver which would simplify using it a lot. This happens when I am looking at a turn play for certain hand that on previous street was played as mixed strategy, so it wasnt 100% for either bet or check.Lets say a XY hand was bet 50% on flop and now on turn when Im looking at "bet" tree for a XY hand it says 45% bet. Since it is only 5% check on turn and graphics show those 45% as continuation of flop's 50% so it is actually 90% bet turn and 10% checked. Is it possible that you make solver shows it in this new % as turn play but not % from flop %.
(So XY was bet flop 50%, turn play after bet flop shows bet 45%, and check 5%, so a new graphics would show bet 90% and check 10% on turn.)
In this was we need to look at least to 2 different things(either flop bet+turn bet or look at turn bet+turn check and can be quite confusing)
Was pretty hard to describe situation but I hope you understood.
Yes, I'll probably add a number of different display toggles in later versions.
At the very least you'll be able to already do this with the Alt+W toggle in v317.
12-16-2015 , 10:38 PM
I'm trying to figure out the EV of reshoving a particular hand on crev and when I do that it shows an EV of -1,058. Using a different program to calculate the same thing under same conditions it shows -3,058. I'm in the sb have posted 2k blind. So does the program I'm using count the sb in the ev loss? Whereas CREV just counts the amt of chips won or lost and EV of fold being 0?
12-17-2015 , 09:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by squintster GTO+/CardRunnersEV?
I'm trying to figure out the EV of reshoving a particular hand on crev and when I do that it shows an EV of -1,058. Using a different program to calculate the same thing under same conditions it shows -3,058. I'm in the sb have posted 2k blind. So does the program I'm using count the sb in the ev loss? Whereas CREV just counts the amt of chips won or lost and EV of fold being 0?
The EV of shoving is -1,058, and this is the number you should use to decide whether to shove or not. If it's greater than 0 you can shove, if it's below 0 you shouldn't. The -3,058 number is pretty useless to decision making, given that you'd need to keep track of whether or not it's above or below -2,000.

The -3,058 number will tell you what you will expect to make in the entire hand. So if you're at the point of posting your blind, you may want to reconsider, given that you're about to first 2000, after which you'll lose an additional 1058 with a bad play.

After you have posted the blind though, and the hand has started, the -3058 number is completely irrelevant. You have posted your blind, your money is gone and you should focus on making good decisions from that point on.

That being said, CardRunnersEV does offer the -3,058 number in the "Strategy EV". This is the performance of your hands prior to posting. It tells you whether or not you should be in the hand at all. Mouse over it to see the performance of individual hands.



Please do observe though that strategy EV is only useful if you define your strategy for your entire range ("all hands"). You can't just give a player a single hand and then assign any meaning to it, given that at the point of posting your blind your range is "all hands"; you don't know yet what you're about to be dealt.

Last edited by scylla; 12-17-2015 at 09:14 AM.
12-18-2015 , 12:39 AM
I know you explained everything very in depth but I'm having trouble following. This situation is that of an online tournament so there is no choice whether or not to post a blind, it's going to happen. Below I have a screen shot of the situation and the code if you care to take a look. I just wanna be sure I'm interpreting EV on crev correctly.




Code:
[CardRunnersEV v3.1.6]
[This text block contains a savefile for CardRunnersEV]
[Use Ctrl+I to import into CardRunnersEV]
[www.cardrunnersev.com]
[yur4J.zj?cD?SI01yvxyDSGL!TjTQRuxy!b#NT@X.gZx?z-VxqiMlVehB2z2PKcKgJK_T4]
[hz&jM82QvGSUqZJVm=kf*(uw5U&)5Z.=1&$Da*uMRq!LTEA=U6*BsfJrpRtUaM.&O@hcOs]
[Y@Zpi8$Y.HnMeLjLI4j0xjK$Wh2tNKUOYpUVl@?QHp.c#S?23@a_j_C5-mWmd5Z&6du9Iu]
[u&&sWU76xgZODpnE2?dO$kV5jRMLD7tdnKF9@Z.qyaEHMGNKm@K?8&ZfSIz7tVhLsSpf&P]
[uxrOWCiBCPvHc+E36EuQnOa5_3g30oSA71xSmNi#?rJ_w$b#iNRv-T&SXe8OmwWo#OTaVn]
[Y!rE&TqvbCb,sw9YRdD,wscPapxm4$xzLYbst$Uzh0z.&pjnGh1luDLD7Jq_kz.q?PKhnp]
[AdizOxx#Gg2n@-@sPZHiLJzwdenoX$@e@7q7GVCTqdgty7f71Eg$pegy6Wc._rN_w3xp.E]
[.UaD#Dzz9$g@TP?KhDeb#mVj!9MuvaC3D0_!HpxjMPlpCpJlD,1zj,KDnWj6Z_nfh!$FB_]
[CI5AVA64TmMgObowJ%lL6Ivy18Wp6+MU#NZO&GdETVo2qUjc16m3XyqxLM?zv-fLjkH-i2]
[8$NZ+e#e62Px_0dzJpCPUzj9f52nwyFKv#?V4$wla9Xl-C4t7GrAeqHKjhc1rgs#kPco7o]
[6rOTqkoMRfHElhBGrtSU#bh36S2i6$5sjYT1c1skYcqtUz5xO8NI2D+bD+2PxNM5e!stwQ]
[CXCETCrTZ5wme&TxHK21d9O0TJkGx!l5J7+dIT84Dijx68T7.7T,KGWq7zZ,7uKJ&LD$b4]
[LoMC&ky?NdbA2HotffBzOEnKiL_2UwzsDMNc$JK&U-_!+I2rhPJSjmfdET7!!vxP810ncM]
[VC8E24LJAAmx6BV$to7On_b1hy2wUewJi&SH+GT2o@syyy?vmIIeIYrzq_OXoscy2Cv#aM]
[s4a_14hi6LT_7e4Yf91nPQ8#x#uyAY0pgphERjqm$diWA9WzD13R88puN$y3?N95jOdOgz]
[K!um$?By!KKwGj#f?.JXTv8td$9w0yjgrAWEHfJfa+z9atffKiEF?PukgyKjRst_BSV99C]
[61ztWrYbwC3Wj5v5g$xR9WEA8diSBj8E0R_ju6TGCayLug#Vnz6BU.9JI3r@zB3mhuqhee]
[QdHoYC587Z$xq--OgXVg8d?PegX+l1Uz.744.E-7Hh4Mk5powTgzFFy..KuY_Z1l+w#t2x]
[PRn7PDcseZjsnf8wb6p@$VSA29jMq_Hb&256iW7vNGz#oD&YWpow+7$40KLpV48qfoaOfY]
[pychk.pS.NpLYUs&K6hrfuPF!s@wx#gvobg7XEuSEajqAm8aBtVHnz6UGyO.nnOw818dy4]
[Gs4_B0D.Rx@KVFvFS&#sd!0IAV#Rd.LTF8i0DZDM3Pe4nljlMk5LF5Fl&#?+8I#UFu@Dgj]
[8KNv9?-&zOurcrInY!.Fun2jzFj0M38HF@pGyp$GE8?77a$N0WEL0O!q@mN!Q7D#8UE2TH]
[WM0DENsNscij0og48+edHJmvoAglh41v9#iWt.IXN8MuCRZnXU@.WW&!Zo2cyjxHBsuXEL]
[NpzVgXrzOW4SIP&&NlTEK87pY4oEJ!I-qb8U5TT!0?n0lu3.1fijY4BjZ4j&C9VzoEVpnC]
[VIHt,V#f$Z-.,iZM1fZ-8sh9TC.lDsQyof&8hg?K.LbN6Aam4-s86%5pW4gVOjUU,-q5Pr]
[erIBbmr.W37bDf6u4CZF74dHxm8OmJ++remLkKh.9LCks1pV+JND6yj_G012aUJ_Gxc6J7]
[_5CEhKltAxIDoGbxrXtXmBNBu29Smw4n.D?m9Hy1e?+hSzMqqS4.-VJ_2SHdZI7O@oe&VP]
[zc.Jk&JGOOp9KLW@Yi8.VTKkHnUD-7sy.?3l98v0o9Pf+PY2L$RkXqRGYFesa8P2exhgON]
[gTZm8bH7OCk8P54WgrCspD+ZcsEEtp0JclKateA?I6u5qNJpN_WQ_wFfOw1Oc_rAvvCfI8]
[O6.u_fpwJJeKS.j0KLGG@k2HwJ7.aNLdVFfy6m@734xE8tOzGpujea2l.-WyS#aUmsBtu-]
[-2@t1lNJ0cqvOyRb5WN$?8Je$rDzyf$wnd&_FpqqWXH-nG1mcM#JRNc_-ezhhvaMV&fUsl]
[Ks_FC_78OASJgEJ_mr0miZ-QX1EfESF6L7-Bp9vgCbpfzETU968Onf1T-XcM9vw-lIFYuu]
[EVc-?C!K3hb3DYQnJP$Vi&S!6]
To be sure to get most accurate results I've just used A9s as range for hero. Will my result be any different if I recreate with my entire shove range? Or will it still show that amt of EV when I hover over the combo in range after solving?

EDIT: I've tried setting up an entire shove range for hero that included A9s and increased the monte carlo sims to 900,000 and am getting a pretty wide deviation. Sometimes it's -800 and sometimes all the way down to -1500, any way to make my findings a bit more accurate? I'm wondering if a delete action can be used to help me get the tree hu and use the math engine...

Last edited by squintster; 12-18-2015 at 12:45 AM.
12-18-2015 , 06:38 AM
The results will not be different if you use the entire range, so you should just use A9s.
If you want to increase the accuracy, then increasing the number of simulations should accomplish that.


In regards to which number you need, you need the -1058 number from CardRunnersEV. The -3058 number is not particularly useful. It tells you at the time of posting that in the scenario where you get dealt A9s and button raises you will lose 3058. But at the time of posting which hand you'll get dealt and what the other players will do before you get to act is still an open question. Looking at one particular scenario of what might happen at the time when you're posting doesn't really tell you anything. The fact that you're forced to post your blind does not affect this either. The EV of buying a lottery ticket is exactly the same whether it is forced or voluntary.

Let's say the numbers were a bit different. The EV for shoving is 500 and the pre-post EV for this scenario is -1500. You should shove here in order to win 500. The alternative of folding would make the EV of shoving 0 and the pre-post EV -2000.

Last edited by scylla; 12-18-2015 at 06:46 AM.
12-19-2015 , 03:22 AM
Hi Scylla
I tried to build script to check the EV of defending BB vs open, tried to get it in function of open raise range vs calling frequency calculated by max exploit tool.
at the end I get only one column and not all the frequencies of BB call vs BU open.

the result






script

Spoiler:
[CardRunnersEV v3.1.6]
[This text block contains a savefile for CardRunnersEV]
[Use Ctrl+I to import into CardRunnersEV]
[www.cardrunnersev.com]
[l0?zGqL_&c#7R!24h8@?ZqoisMmpVTZ.zAcm2a0YnmBOVvNw.-XfK?TeJ3cBErM6J?mngQ]
[xwV$KgWqx7!v!2bY$a2bUPpzvSeUZxRTE6IPrOFu=ZS*(ak?Ac )i_g=lSW.W*RLlS#.Qdn]
[=mo*955x!tcloOAEi.9nAOgC7toiff1Ua3pTgj-b6UsS+1XglT6XvufsE9ENI&qclC0ebG]
[qvVRgQ4kYxmiIw@?#x_0QPt$qkIaMS7o4t?l_Ncm9!aD8VGO$0 FW!_Bgw9kw7CjAvMyTd4]
[+KoH@OTCebd@nz7tU-LFzDF_1EGpd+vhwTrCC.1qDN2v0QZruU@zg3Y.aKON70t@x6LA 1&]
[dXdDJD69knzh.SJFMjD%s4P.qjyXU-9qw-uT$nGEIB7dyy$VjX4rr5cQFxj4nVf5#GY@Rz]
[wqWh!s+80tNTn$ZVN3vxP.?T+5GoYlA5rF?4jD&z#WgN5R-ygn.Gq2IMqarcIfZTqs0UC-]
[pDPVgFxI?bFF_pp4UxhUdhclGu0lF+zAjAria8bC6O80DuL2Sv iEwtc$8p9C$M_VH$CWt6]
[H#Lr0oRUL8&?#gfAc$JhidGcVKF!TQy2By&tWaGrL1ApUNJVFq 5+SwUVr.-5BzuwdF0gOU]
[_QOQh336XC8t8z7Khq6dWPRbQ0+6lN5gNUv_680nYC2ZmIVYwR zlY8$f729k52CzoflQ06]
[A(+3)i8j3yn_$?qmp!XxJnzVmHhx4e4bHM?yzvo&ilj.j>=3!, FqCLMysg2w+d6#EhqXL_]
[A+&E6&2+X$7rsJplciWNjHfIwv(n_)sOcao9Szwwtwx3d5s1WA l7?gd!34KD#.53pHixDr]
[tQonF630jv3e@1_Y9isW4H+!JTKB+qeze5omdHeo3jSzK9pIl_ EP5B1+d4sz8LKMlpAS+w]
[5NmXmpR4ILEyLtlnaIc?l?$0xdEbmqVltscHC.UyHog&EvZa!B @urz!f6UhY#L-SVlmgPL]
[KjcQ@7_7&ogZM#3?mEdp_GYGEdgW&d-N?#1#EclrLz741wo6QZquZdahZ3kiYAcbE&M4cu]
[$Mb-kTY0DUeBtwTEfmTd#?EFAijR_DKEE7ACVZ4R!-NZq#$Wuh6yA&zrRzuZL.N++HooIO]
[7@i-VcWw&?LkEw44u@ES&3Fq!A?OuyHOiG9h.1yF_KVJHlN1rnM7TN FxllyOnF7RPU1?aB]
[D1jjJ+Y_zJye8Spvyo6ANvu$LttJDOBvs!uCKbH#E0K!1Y5fGI qJJtncX2.8Qi_xCPyEO@]
[Y9y3.cuSB$xHZ?9y2t_ATMSFYCv2pFnQthspnWIL6ATO@.sV4q Pirbv1p6wKei9+ilRWRR]
[+zcULJOMEhvjjg&ZWoe&A3re3pwXv3Om96?osXgjz#7ldu-kb7$T17GPPu3hN+e7846D?A]
[5!zQ$wT30gt4StX-p1KwN_o6eoMrQ6BrKC?o7nTBvQZ?S6LBpnv.&yX@Dtbq2qYlj7 gp#P]
[SYbGrmATssol+GHEICE2K@..&s@XGpTge3WaLKs.Y9Tpz_xIBS @#9andb9CoFSgU.$zrkI]
[paN81PRSIH$Pmja2M41DtUGqFlWee$H!tkG?(sa)#n0guPkFfH qRoS5i!HOKTpDXJ+#icI]
[XXu!eS02-i$U(nV)Iho1nHgCBTjYKtqpkApyJgzNziu7pXIk#ift@Scw>=7 7,1sL4wO.WB]
[AbZHg9zMRlg9-XldBDW3$-$z!0cs@RznuKj6fkQCn6GgWfomMgZBZS?@ZwCKNG2_YRI#YH]
[nD@&E+i@3Lis6K2j_EF@rbw_L6ncpK24ElPWo-?1KOCwi2ayHo9N3iYZQT?8&MK@mB@R8Y]
[2#EhFTamSh@Or0y.lINCV-VqSBWOhlWfKBsMqKQS7KQDX+S-81ZHV_BU1oau?c_Ei1Z$UV]
[5_W7slzPEEAlKlU5$3R?cI6@TLaW!i+3aZe_ZyTAeBDUE-zXmFzHMSnLb4yG?e$zYugnix]
[$44YZ$jxjPFyDY7+CC3Ys#0bl?&2@yhAYtu9ebZYmgZukw-MHEIO?w+X+&dlWqr_+Ud!B3]
[GSE4_#KP-x0oxA6Rj-GIOo&VZTVf!@N?2I-YzVzy4jXBA9LN0uPHSSgS+SnG!u3oq-o8wy]
[WssgEJn$FLja1vJ2IyJSEROtlMTcDd#LFmdUF4rGD9pCOk-RcZx+ePgOhbq@H7OYkD#0Oe]
[Q_H4mBnQYNv]

Last edited by lafauriea; 12-19-2015 at 03:29 AM.
12-19-2015 , 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lafauriea GTO+/CardRunnersEV?
Hi Scylla
I tried to build script to check the EV of defending BB vs open, tried to get it in function of open raise range vs calling frequency calculated by max exploit tool.
at the end I get only one column and not all the frequencies of BB call vs BU open.

the result






script

Spoiler:
[CardRunnersEV v3.1.6]
[This text block contains a savefile for CardRunnersEV]
[Use Ctrl+I to import into CardRunnersEV]
[www.cardrunnersev.com]
[l0?zGqL_&c#7R!24h8@?ZqoisMmpVTZ.zAcm2a0YnmBOVvNw.-XfK?TeJ3cBErM6J?mngQ]
[xwV$KgWqx7!v!2bY$a2bUPpzvSeUZxRTE6IPrOFu=ZS*(ak?Ac )i_g=lSW.W*RLlS#.Qdn]
[=mo*955x!tcloOAEi.9nAOgC7toiff1Ua3pTgj-b6UsS+1XglT6XvufsE9ENI&qclC0ebG]
[qvVRgQ4kYxmiIw@?#x_0QPt$qkIaMS7o4t?l_Ncm9!aD8VGO$0 FW!_Bgw9kw7CjAvMyTd4]
[+KoH@OTCebd@nz7tU-LFzDF_1EGpd+vhwTrCC.1qDN2v0QZruU@zg3Y.aKON70t@x6LA 1&]
[dXdDJD69knzh.SJFMjD%s4P.qjyXU-9qw-uT$nGEIB7dyy$VjX4rr5cQFxj4nVf5#GY@Rz]
[wqWh!s+80tNTn$ZVN3vxP.?T+5GoYlA5rF?4jD&z#WgN5R-ygn.Gq2IMqarcIfZTqs0UC-]
[pDPVgFxI?bFF_pp4UxhUdhclGu0lF+zAjAria8bC6O80DuL2Sv iEwtc$8p9C$M_VH$CWt6]
[H#Lr0oRUL8&?#gfAc$JhidGcVKF!TQy2By&tWaGrL1ApUNJVFq 5+SwUVr.-5BzuwdF0gOU]
[_QOQh336XC8t8z7Khq6dWPRbQ0+6lN5gNUv_680nYC2ZmIVYwR zlY8$f729k52CzoflQ06]
[A(+3)i8j3yn_$?qmp!XxJnzVmHhx4e4bHM?yzvo&ilj.j>=3!, FqCLMysg2w+d6#EhqXL_]
[A+&E6&2+X$7rsJplciWNjHfIwv(n_)sOcao9Szwwtwx3d5s1WA l7?gd!34KD#.53pHixDr]
[tQonF630jv3e@1_Y9isW4H+!JTKB+qeze5omdHeo3jSzK9pIl_ EP5B1+d4sz8LKMlpAS+w]
[5NmXmpR4ILEyLtlnaIc?l?$0xdEbmqVltscHC.UyHog&EvZa!B @urz!f6UhY#L-SVlmgPL]
[KjcQ@7_7&ogZM#3?mEdp_GYGEdgW&d-N?#1#EclrLz741wo6QZquZdahZ3kiYAcbE&M4cu]
[$Mb-kTY0DUeBtwTEfmTd#?EFAijR_DKEE7ACVZ4R!-NZq#$Wuh6yA&zrRzuZL.N++HooIO]
[7@i-VcWw&?LkEw44u@ES&3Fq!A?OuyHOiG9h.1yF_KVJHlN1rnM7TN FxllyOnF7RPU1?aB]
[D1jjJ+Y_zJye8Spvyo6ANvu$LttJDOBvs!uCKbH#E0K!1Y5fGI qJJtncX2.8Qi_xCPyEO@]
[Y9y3.cuSB$xHZ?9y2t_ATMSFYCv2pFnQthspnWIL6ATO@.sV4q Pirbv1p6wKei9+ilRWRR]
[+zcULJOMEhvjjg&ZWoe&A3re3pwXv3Om96?osXgjz#7ldu-kb7$T17GPPu3hN+e7846D?A]
[5!zQ$wT30gt4StX-p1KwN_o6eoMrQ6BrKC?o7nTBvQZ?S6LBpnv.&yX@Dtbq2qYlj7 gp#P]
[SYbGrmATssol+GHEICE2K@..&s@XGpTge3WaLKs.Y9Tpz_xIBS @#9andb9CoFSgU.$zrkI]
[paN81PRSIH$Pmja2M41DtUGqFlWee$H!tkG?(sa)#n0guPkFfH qRoS5i!HOKTpDXJ+#icI]
[XXu!eS02-i$U(nV)Iho1nHgCBTjYKtqpkApyJgzNziu7pXIk#ift@Scw>=7 7,1sL4wO.WB]
[AbZHg9zMRlg9-XldBDW3$-$z!0cs@RznuKj6fkQCn6GgWfomMgZBZS?@ZwCKNG2_YRI#YH]
[nD@&E+i@3Lis6K2j_EF@rbw_L6ncpK24ElPWo-?1KOCwi2ayHo9N3iYZQT?8&MK@mB@R8Y]
[2#EhFTamSh@Or0y.lINCV-VqSBWOhlWfKBsMqKQS7KQDX+S-81ZHV_BU1oau?c_Ei1Z$UV]
[5_W7slzPEEAlKlU5$3R?cI6@TLaW!i+3aZe_ZyTAeBDUE-zXmFzHMSnLb4yG?e$zYugnix]
[$44YZ$jxjPFyDY7+CC3Ys#0bl?&2@yhAYtu9ebZYmgZukw-MHEIO?w+X+&dlWqr_+Ud!B3]
[GSE4_#KP-x0oxA6Rj-GIOo&VZTVf!@N?2I-YzVzy4jXBA9LN0uPHSSgS+SnG!u3oq-o8wy]
[WssgEJn$FLja1vJ2IyJSEROtlMTcDd#LFmdUF4rGD9pCOk-RcZx+ePgOhbq@H7OYkD#0Oe]
[Q_H4mBnQYNv]
You can only store data in a table if both the X and Y increments are constant.

For example, try writing down how the 2x2 table for the following data should look:

#1: 1 Freq: 23% EV: 12.3
#1: 2 Freq: 31% EV: 13.7
#1: 1 Freq: 42% EV: 14.8
#1: 2 Freq: 55% EV: 15.1

As you can see, it's not possible to store this data in a 2x2 table.

A 2x2 table can only be created if for every value of #1 there's the same set of the other variable.
So like this:

#1: 1 #2: 10 EV: 12.3
#1: 2 #2: 10 EV: 13.7
#1: 1 #2: 20 EV: 14.8
#1: 2 #2: 20 EV: 15.1

In this case the data can be displayed as:
___10_____20
1__12.3___14.8
2__13.7___15.1
12-22-2015 , 08:04 PM
Hi Scylla, I'm new to the software and was wondering if its possible to use the unexploitable shoving tool in a pot that started 3handed but one player folded PF? On your site it says 'Only for heads-up trees! The Unexploitable Shoving Tool only works for trees that have only two active players in them.'

Because it says 'active players' I was hoping it could work in this spot: https://gyazo.com/54ba7096952de301bfc50bb25e018d0a

I'm sure you would have answered this somewhere but its a big thread sorry. Thanks and GJ on the software!
12-23-2015 , 06:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurgok GTO+/CardRunnersEV?
Hi Scylla, I'm new to the software and was wondering if its possible to use the unexploitable shoving tool in a pot that started 3handed but one player folded PF? On your site it says 'Only for heads-up trees! The Unexploitable Shoving Tool only works for trees that have only two active players in them.'

Because it says 'active players' I was hoping it could work in this spot: https://gyazo.com/54ba7096952de301bfc50bb25e018d0a

I'm sure you would have answered this somewhere but its a big thread sorry. Thanks and GJ on the software!
Well, currently it's not possible, and if you have a 2-handed tree then you should really just keep the third player out of it, unless he really plays an important part in the hand.

The main problem that you're dealing with here is that the card removal from the third player affects the distribution of hands for the other two. I might be able to allow the tool to work in these spots in future releases, but that would only be possible if this card removal effect is ignored.

Cheers,

Scylla
12-23-2015 , 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by scylla GTO+/CardRunnersEV?
Well, currently it's not possible, and if you have a 2-handed tree then you should really just keep the third player out of it, unless he really plays an important part in the hand.

The main problem that you're dealing with here is that the card removal from the third player affects the distribution of hands for the other two. I might be able to allow the tool to work in these spots in future releases, but that would only be possible if this card removal effect is ignored.

Cheers,

Scylla
Thanks for the fast reply. Ok I understand thank you, I didn't realize I could create the tree with just CO vs SB and had added in other seats just to fill the table & fold.
12-25-2015 , 03:15 PM
Merry xmas scylla and all the best,

any plans to include diversification by suit in weighted range matrix menu?
12-25-2015 , 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moment GTO+/CardRunnersEV?
Merry xmas scylla and all the best,

any plans to include diversification by suit in weighted range matrix menu?
sorry i meant view by different suits
12-26-2015 , 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moment GTO+/CardRunnersEV?
Merry xmas scylla and all the best,

any plans to include diversification by suit in weighted range matrix menu?
There's a number of these menus.
Which one are you talking about?
12-26-2015 , 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by scylla GTO+/CardRunnersEV?
There's a number of these menus.
Which one are you talking about?
I was looking at an equilibrium solution, would be nice to have options to see XXhh combos only or XXhx for example, how they play.
12-26-2015 , 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moment GTO+/CardRunnersEV?
I was looking at an equilibrium solution, would be nice to have options to see XXhh combos only or XXhx for example, how they play.
Ah, ok.
I expect to start work on features like this in January.

Cheers,

Scylla
12-29-2015 , 04:44 PM
i feel like this question has been asked alot itt and i tried to dm someone that said they figured it out but no response, can anyone help me get crev to work with mac/wine?? too many pages of this thread to go through them all
12-30-2015 , 03:23 AM
Hi scylla,



When I was reviewing a hand in CREV today. I give SB and BB a range on the flop as the picture. I locked the flop condition. Ran the equilibrium tool from the turn. After some investigation, I suspect that the SB could play any two cards, probably because the BB range I gave is too tight. So I tried adding 73o in SB flop range, then pressed F7. (without running equilibrium tool again). I was expecting to get an error because 73o wasn't in my previous range. So CREV shouldn't know the strategy of 73o, because it didn't calculate it. But surprisingly, CREV still gave it a strategy which seems pretty reasonable. I wonder where does it come from?

Cheers,

pokoteng
12-30-2015 , 05:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordenBombay GTO+/CardRunnersEV?
i feel like this question has been asked alot itt and i tried to dm someone that said they figured it out but no response, can anyone help me get crev to work with mac/wine?? too many pages of this thread to go through them all
I believe most people actually use CrossOver to get the software to run on a Mac.
Apparently it's a bit harder to get this done with Wine.
So, if possible, use CrossOver.
12-30-2015 , 05:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokoteng GTO+/CardRunnersEV?
Hi scylla,



When I was reviewing a hand in CREV today. I give SB and BB a range on the flop as the picture. I locked the flop condition. Ran the equilibrium tool from the turn. After some investigation, I suspect that the SB could play any two cards, probably because the BB range I gave is too tight. So I tried adding 73o in SB flop range, then pressed F7. (without running equilibrium tool again). I was expecting to get an error because 73o wasn't in my previous range. So CREV shouldn't know the strategy of 73o, because it didn't calculate it. But surprisingly, CREV still gave it a strategy which seems pretty reasonable. I wonder where does it come from?

Cheers,

pokoteng
When the solver writes a solution to file it will always keep the condition for the last action as "all hands". So when you included 73o in the range no actions for it were found and it was always moved to the last action. As a result, it's always either checked or folded.
12-30-2015 , 08:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by scylla GTO+/CardRunnersEV?
When the solver writes a solution to file it will always keep the condition for the last action as "all hands". So when you included 73o in the range no actions for it were found and it was always moved to the last action. As a result, it's always either checked or folded.
Hi scylla,

Actually I find 73o bluff pretty often, and it's not a pure strategy (It will bluff sometimes and check sometimes if villain check... )

Another question, I noticed that when I use Max Exploit Tool, it only works on the current level.
For example, if I use the NE tool on the flop (with turn&river card unknown). Then I try to test the NE with Max Exploit Tool. It seems like it only works on the flop. (only on the flop it is max exploit) If I now assign a specific turn card, it is not max exploit at the turn stage.(It does not show Expl. Range anymore, and it's not pure strategy) I wonder how does the Max Exploit Tool work? Does it assume that all the turn&river play is fixed, and only works on the current level?

Cheers,

Pokoteng
12-30-2015 , 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokoteng GTO+/CardRunnersEV?
Hi scylla,

Actually I find 73o bluff pretty often, and it's not a pure strategy (It will bluff sometimes and check sometimes if villain check... )

Another question, I noticed that when I use Max Exploit Tool, it only works on the current level.
For example, if I use the NE tool on the flop (with turn&river card unknown). Then I try to test the NE with Max Exploit Tool. It seems like it only works on the flop. (only on the flop it is max exploit) If I now assign a specific turn card, it is not max exploit at the turn stage.(It does not show Expl. Range anymore, and it's not pure strategy) I wonder how does the Max Exploit Tool work? Does it assume that all the turn&river play is fixed, and only works on the current level?

Cheers,

Pokoteng
Right at this moment the max exploit tool only works for the last board phase where the board cards are known. Expanding this to the unknown board cards should not be too difficult though; I'll take care of this either in January or February.

      
m