Try downloading again, should be fixed by now.

I've actually cleaned this script up a bit and made it the default example in the blog post:
Blog Example Script
Blog Section

I think it's much more useful than the original example, thanks for the input

@Everyone:
Please keep posting suggestions if there's something missing for your requirements, even if you don't care for scripting and prefer to setup hands through the UI. This gives us devs a much better understanding about the trees you guys are trying to build and we'll design the new betsizing UI accordingly.

Thank you so much man ! With last script i think we can configurate almost all

Nice job !

Future versions will u add this visual like the paint showed before ?

Probably not exactly like the paint, as that takes up too much space. But we'd enable this type of hand setup via the UI in the program, yes.

The details still depend on the feedback. If user consensus is that this version will be sufficient for most calculations then we're happy to implement it for the UI. We'll give it a few more days to see if anything important is missing before we start with the UI implementation.

Hi
I am getting strange results since last update on beta. Ran a 8 handed spot cev and got 84% utg rfi and similar in all other positions. Did a test running a old tree i had before and had similar issues.
Any ideas?

I'm not aware of any issues, can you please send me the setup you used so I can try to reproduce it? Stacks, blinds, bet options etc. Either here or to support@holdemresources.net.

I've checked a few of our previous calculations and they converge to the same ranges when re-run with the current version. Did you actually re-run the same tree or did you set one up from scratch? If it's the latter, please double check that the settings are actually the same as the previous run. It's probably just a typo or mistake in the setup in that case.

Can you add a function and sizing options for 4 and 5 bets to the template as well for deeper trees?

Sure, we can start a version for deeper stacks based on the last one.

I'd need some input on this though, I'm not sure how users would like to define the 4-bet sizes. With a setup like the last script we end up with 8+ different 3-bet sizings (5 regular sizes, 3 for squeezes, plus variations for multi-caller squeezes). Fixed bb-sizings start to look a bit impractical to me if we'd have to define an IP/OOP response 4-bet sizing against each of the 3-bet sizings.

I guess we'll need to make the IP/OOP distinction for sure, but the rest needs to be a bit more generalized imo.

Do we want fixed multipliers of the last raise, possibly with adjustments for flat callers?
Alternatively just go with sizings as percentage of the pot?

Wouldn't you guys consider adding a RP box along with the BF that it already has? I guess it would be quite simple for the machine and v useful to users

Yeah I was thinking sizings as a % of pot probably works best.

The script is still allowing for players to over-call 3-bets and to still over-call squeezes. I do want the initial PFR to be able to call a 3-bet, but I'd rather the remaining players play cold 4-bet all-in/fold only.

Probably the way to go would be a BB option with four options based on whether it's cold or as the opener, and IP or OOP

Vs squeezes maybe a percent of pot option would simplify things a bit

For the UI? Absolutely. Even the current UI supports sizing both as e.g. "2.3bb" or "0.75pot". I think we'll change the syntax but definitely keep the option.

What script are you using, still the very first version I posted?

Please try the latest one, it only allows a single flat call for 3bets:
example_mtt.js

If you do see more than a single 3-bet flat using this script then please let me know the exact setup of the hand you used and what line you are looking at, that would be a bug then.

Re: not allowing cold calling, that's a relatively simple adjustment and would eliminate a ton of unwanted lines. Shouldn't be hard to do, I'll give this a go.

This looks reasonably compact I guess, lets try.

Yep using the latest version and it still allows for cold-calling a 3-bet. I tried the example_mtt.js as well and it also allows cold-calling vs 3-bets and cold-calling vs squeezes.

It allows cold calling, that's ok and something I'll need to implement separately.

You mentioned over-calling 3bets and squeezes still being allowed though. Is that also the case?

This is a new version with an additional setting to disable coldcalls:
example_mtt_coldcalls.js

Make sure you update to the latest version of HRC first, otherwise you'll get an error. There was a minor bug in the script settings that prevented access to the action sequence.

Fwiw, I'll take things a bit slower for the rest of the weekend

Perfect, thanks. No longer cold-calling vs 3-bets + squeezes with this new script.

First script has error

Example : OR CO - 3B BTN - COLD CALL3BET SB - BB Cant do nothing and CO only can 4B or FOLD

Last script dont allowing COLD CALL3BET Looks perfect

Did you set max active players to >3 in the Monte Carlo settings? Sounds like it was using the max 3 player restriction that is set by default.

Yes, my fault! I didnt know we could put >3. Thank you !

Hey friend, I guess my question wasn't clear. Sorry for that. I meant risk premium (RP). We already have bubble factor, but I guess it would be simple for you to add the risk premium in the display, interface, and the machine already knows it since it uses in the calculation of the bubble factor.

Hey, prior to the last update we only had ''reset strategies''. I always clicked the box when node-locked ranges. Now we also have ''reset regret''. How is this used, when should I select both or ''reset regret'' instead of ''reset strategies''?

Completely misunderstood your question in the middle of the betting setup discussion, sorry.

RP = 1 / (1 + PO / BF) - 1 /(1 + PO)

So the RP actually depends on PO & BF, but I guess we could display the generic risk premium without overlay (PO=1). It doesn't make a huge difference as long as the PO stay within a "normal" range.

Checking "reset regret" clears both, that's equivalent to the old behavior with only a single box.

Checking "reset strategies" alone will keep the regret / EVs intact but reset the averaged strategies. Strategies will converge very quickly to the current +EV hands in that case. Try doing a strategy reset after about 50% of your total sampling, this will remove any of the early-calculation jitters from the displayed strategies. (i.e. It's an easy way to get rid of all the 99% / 1% mixed strategies that can otherwise take ages to fully convert to 100% / 0%.)

Is this sufficient though?

Example:
HJ opens, CO 3-bets, BU 4-bets
HJ opens, BB 3-bets, HJ 4-bets

In both cases the 4-bettor has position against the 3-bettor. But it doesn't look reasonable to use the same 4-bet sizings for both cases, given that the 3-bets will be sized differently.

--

I've done simple IP/OOP 4bets sized by pot for now, you guys can give give that a try and let me know what adjustments we need:
example_mtt_deeper.js

How about an option to add Preflop all-in as a sizing as long as this would be less than e.g. a 5x pot raise or whatever?

This may be a stupid question, but how do I save the results of a sim I run on a hand?