Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonnycache
Thanks! I think mostly I just needed confirmation that I was doing things right and thinking through the math accurately. I've had to brush a lot of cobwebs off of my math skills since I started the poker study, so when the work I'm doing doesn't match up with the answer key it can be frustrating. Very much appreciate you taking the time to reply, and now I probably have a deeper way of thinking about the 2 pair situation than if you had the same definition as the other program that need not be named.
You're welcome; I'm happy to discuss this program. I commend you on your poker study and dedication. I offer a 2c suggestion though that for what you study, add an element of practicality and utility in actual game hand situations/thinking, vs. just as a detailed exhaustive academic exercise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonnycache
I definitely am not qualified yet to argue which definition of 2 pair is more useful, and your reasoning makes complete sense.
I think you and most of us are qualified. In my last reply on this I gave a high level common sense reason why I believe that other program's definition of hitting TwoPair doesn't seem right. The various poker hands OnePair, TwoPair, 3OfAKind, etc. are listed in this specific order because in general they get harder to hit/make as you go from left to right, hence their value increases from left to right. That other program, for your pretty generic/balanced decently wide range Top15% of hands, says it's *4x easier* to hit 3OfAKind than TwoPair on the flop. How does this make sense? PokerCruncher on this example gives the common sense expected result, that it's harder to hit 3OfAKind than TwoPair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonnycache
I will say that, as I am doing these poker math workbooks (the pre-flop and post-flop ones made by James Sweeney/splitsuit), there are a couple minor categories of hands that would be useful. If it's practical to include in a future update, it would be cool if there was an options menu where users could choose to add in these stats. I get that they're probably a little to obscure to be worth crowding the default interface with. I'm not sure how many people buy (or actually complete) his or similar math workbooks, so obviously your decision in terms of whether it's worth adding to your app--these are just the stats that would be slightly helpful in my exact situation.
Here are the hands that it would be convenient to be able to break out specific stats for:
Underpairs
2.5th pair / PP below second card
3.5th pair /PP below third card
4.5th pair /PP below 4th card.
2 pair not including pairs on the board (again, just as an extra stat to add in, I have no horse in the race as to whether this the default definition.
I have been able to complete almost every other part of these math workbooks perfectly using Poker Cruncher. The only other functionality that was missing in the worksheet was the ability to predict flop textures. I believe that I read in an earlier post that you felt this wasn't practical for the app since it is focused on equity calculations--again, no problem, just thought I'd mention it since it came up for my specific case.
Here's the type of question where this comes up in these math workbooks:
1. How often is the flop monotone, vs rainbow, vs two-tone?
2. How often is the flop Jack high and unpaired?
Ok I'll keep this stats/feature suggestion in mind for the future, when I have nothing to do (ha ha). But I have to be honest and say I have no desire to add these additional stats. My goal in PokerCruncher is not to "stat match" or feature match various other programs in this space, but to have the stats and features that are the most important and the most bang for the buck for us in hand analysis and thinking. For example in the OnePair category, I see a lot of value in the stats OverPair, TopPair, SecondPair, BottomPair, 1.5th Pair, and PokerCruncher-Expert has these stats. I see less value in 3.5th, 4.5th, etc. pairs. I won't say never, but currently I don't have a burning desire to add in such less useful features just to feature match some other program which to me has already made some un-wise choices and decisions on some stats (like in the definition of hitting TwoPair discussed above). Similarly for the predicting flop textures thing, which I think is interesting from an academic perspective, but I wonder how useful that is in actual game hand analysis.