is there any auto save option like in office? just got a crash after i put some work and its annoying

ohh nevermind - just saw the restore option - it has not crashed so far so never used it

however part of my work is still missing;/

Whenever you make a change to your tree a backup is automatically stored.
In order to restore your session, restart the software and click on the "Restore" button in the startup screen.

yes, the tree is there however i did work on the ranges and this is completely lost for some parts of the tree

The restore function indeed only stores the tree itself. Equilibrium data can often take up a lot of disk space, so for this undo system it is left out. You should be able to restore the data by re-running the solver though. Should you be making very long runs with the solver, then it's probably a good idea to store a savefile after it's done; just in case.

Cheers,

Scylla

Hi, is there way to save the results in a readable txt file in order to consult it later?

There's often several hundreds of MB's of data in the trees, so it kind of depends on which data you're looking for.
Could you specify in a bit detail please?

I mean some kind of recap of the hand:
- ranges at various nodes
- EVs
- etc

Ok, I'll see what I can do.

oh ty

hi, i totally forgot about this post . thanks a lot, you cleared everything up.
cheers

Is there an easier way define/change turn or river cards so that I don't have to go all the way to the little turn/river icon and then trace my way back to the part of the tree I was at? So I'll run the solver, check the flop solution, then I have to go all the way to the turn icon and define the turn, go all the way to the beginning of the tree and trace my way down to the turn solution, go to the river icon and define the river and then trace my way down to the river part of the tree. It would give me much joy if I could change the turn and river as easily as I can change the blinds or stack sizes while I'm already at the desired part of the tree. Also, it would save me much confusion, especially with the huge 4bet trees, if when I moused over a certain branch there was a small pop-up telling me the line I'm taking (i.e. "Flop: sb bet/bb call" or "Preflop: 3bet, Flop: bb bet, sb call"). I can see how that could get complicated but there's probably a way to abbreviate the terms. Or maybe there could be a way for users to ask the software to take me to the desired part of the tree easily. Pio abbreviates the whole tree so that each branch is easily accessible without having to trace long branches manually. Other than that I love the design/tools. Forgive me if these features are already available and I just don't know how to use them.

What do you mean "go all the way to the turn icon". It is at the top of the screen!

I'll keep it in mind for future development.
Thank you for the feedback!

Scylla

It's only at the top of the screen if your tree is small but when you create huge 4-bet trees it's tedious to have to venture away from a certain branch of the tree to change the turn card only to have to go back to the beginning of the tree and trace your way down to where you were just at to look at the new solution, and then to turn around and have to do it all over again when you want to change the river card. It would be much less time consuming to have a shortcut to change turn/river cards at any time from any location.

Hello,

I made a large tree and started an EV run calc (F7) using Monte Carlo (multi-way), the CPU is showing 1-4% activity on my hexacore/12 thread machine. Is this normal? I never checked it before.

At this point in time multi-threading is only applied to the equilibrium solver and the math engine. I can look into multi-threading the monte carlo engine at a later point, but right at this moment it's not available.

Scylla

Hi Scylla,

Lets assume the board is Qc-8h-7c-Kd, and assume we have Qd9d. Want to look at the turn call EV given that the opponent will 3barrel and we can only call his river shove when we improve with a Q or 9 . However, if I leave the river blank and have hero only calling with "at least 2pr", this means river like 7 or 8 will give us 2 pair, but I only want to count the Q and 9 for the calculation. Whats best way to do this? Assuming my current tree here is flawed -- (...thnx man)

Hi,

You can just leave the tree as it is. Board pairs are not counted towards your own hand value. So if the river is an 8 or 7, then your hand will still only count as 1 pair, given that you only hold a single pair in your hand.

Cheers,

Scylla

Okay thank you, nice programming sir, equity matches too, so thats cool!

If you dont mind me asking, going off that same tree posted, under that model posted it puts Q9dd turn ev at -53.66 which makes sense. Assuming blank river and only calling two pair, this is how much we stand to lose long term with our strategy on the turn.

The part that confuses me is it list BB EV of the river decision at 168.64. Is this number relevant at all? I am trying to understand if that river EV deserves any consideration given the way I set up this up. Okay thanks!

How accurately is crev equilibrium solver results? And better yet how close are they in comparission to other GTO results calculators like Pio, GTOrb and SP for the exact same situation/imputs?

It's what you will expect to make in the long run over the 46 possible rivers in this spot. The -53.66 and 168.84 numbers are related though. On the turn BB invests 222.5 in order to get into a spot where he makes 168.84. Therefore the investment of 222.5 loses him 222.5-168.84=53.66.

For what it's worth, you can also use the equilibrium solver to figure out optimal play on the unknown rivers for BB here.
In this manner, he will play the river perfectly across all possible 46 rivers.
For this, all you will need to do is run the solver and it will fill in the optimal play for you.

It's also possible to use the solver to figure out what would happen if both SB and BB played the river optimally. See this savefile: www.cardrunnersev.com/savefiles/riverplay.stx. I had to guess the ranges though, so you will need to fill those in for yourself. In this case I'm letting SB and BB play range vs range, but if you just want to use a single hand for SB, then that will work as well.



Similarly, you can use the tree building wizard to also build turn play for you. See this savefile: www.cardrunnersev.com/savefiles/turnplay.stx. In this case every possible bet/check/call line is considered for both players. The play on the unknown river is minimized in order to keep the tree easy to read, however, the solver will also take this play into account.



For more information on how to use the solver and the tree building wizard, as well as the range analysis tools, please watch the videos here: http://www.cardrunnersev.com/download.html

The results are exactly the same. You can easily compare for yourself on the turn. Here's an example file: www.cardrunnersev.com/savefiles/exampleturn2.stx. You can enter this same spot under pio under "Postflop Tree Building and Calculations->Version 1.0 style".

You can edit the ranges in any way you see fit by clicking on "edit condition" in the left of CardRunnersEV's screen and then export to pio with CardRunnersEV's "Text input/output" button.

You'll find that the results are the same. The frequencies will appear to be slightly different, but this is because pio does not include card removal in the calculation of its frequencies, while CardRunnersEV does take this into account. The combos will be the same though.

Is there a way to define bet sizes as a fraction/percentage of the pot and hopefully apply that to the entire tree automatically? Any time I manually change the "suggested" bet sizes for the flop, which are drastically different than the actual bet sizes I would use in a HU sng, the turn bet sizing automatically becomes too big or too small compared to the pot.

This is essentially already how it works. It's just that instead of a % you enter the corresponding amount. This actually makes a lot more sense, given that it ensures that all the bet sizes consistenly make sense (or no sense) for the stack-to-pot ratio throughout the tree.

For example, if the pot is 30, the stacks are 180 and the bets are 20,60,180 then the first bet will be 67% of the pot. The raise of 60 comes down to a raise of 57% of the pot and the all-in push of 180 comes down to a raise of 80% of the pot.

Should there be a single bet and a call then play will move to the turn. The next bet will be 40 (which is 60 - 20, or in other words the second bet corrected for the first bet) into a pot of 70, which is ... 57% of the pot. Same as the raise size on the flop. The same applies to all other scenarios. So basically, no matter what the line is, the first bet to go in will always be 67%, the second bet/raise will always be 57% and the final bet/raise will always be 80%. This will be regardless of whether it's a bet or a raise (which is exactly how it should be).

This entire system also makes perfect sense. For example, if OOP checks and IP bets, OOP is now faced with a choice. Will he raise 57% of the pot now, or will he call to see one more card come off and then decide if he wants to bet 57% of the pot?

The disadvantage of a % based system is that bets will be made completely regardless of the stack-to-pot ratio. If the user has entered 70% for river bets, then players will be betting this size while completely ignoring whether or not this size makes any sense for the situation. This problem is completely circumvented by the current system where the first, second and third bet will always be the 67%, 57% and 80%.

If the bet size on the turn is too small/large, then if you do the math on what the actual %'s of bets on the flop are, you'll find that the bet sizes there are too small/large as well. I think the solution here is actually to display the % for the individual bets in the wizard. In this manner if a bet is too large/small, it's easier to recognize it when creating the tree.

Anyhow, should I have misunderstood, then can you please give me an example of where the turn bet is off, but the flop betting is ok? It's always possible that I'm overlooking something, so I'm open to suggestions.

Cheers,

Scylla

Im new to Pio so dont know if i did it right im stil considering if i should buy it or not hopefully CREV equilibrium results does match Pio´s but here´s what i got using that tree u send me and imputing the same info on Pio..

Same ranges for both IP and OOP players..


Same pot, betting and board texture info on both softwares..


Im asuming Pio works with an EV=0 i ren both simulations pretty much for the same time (around 85 secs for both) and got different results...

For CREV...
SB (OOP For Pio)


BB (IP For Pio)


Where did i go wrong?