Picasso,
The actual handrankings used are these:
"Push" handrankings:
AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs, TT, AKo, AQs, 99, AQo, AJs, 88, AJo, ATs, 77, ATo, 66, A9s, 55, KQs, A8s, A9o, 44, KJs, A7s, KQo, 33, A8o, A5s, A6s, KTs, 22, A4s, QJs, A3s, KJo, A7o, A2s, QTs, JTs, K9s, A5o, A6o, KTo, T9s, J9s, Q9s, A4o, QJo, A3o, 98s, K8s, T8s, A2o, K7s, QTo, JTo, 87s, K6s, J8s, Q8s, 97s, 76s, K5s, K9o,T7s, 86s, 65s, K4s, T9o, J7s, Q6s, Q7s, 96s, K3s, J9o, 54s, Q9o, 75s, Q5s, K2s, T6s, 98o, 85s, J6s, Q4s, K8o, 64s, J5s, T8o, Q3s, 95s, K7o, 87o, 53s, J4s, J8o, K6o, Q2s, 74s, Q8o, T5s, 97o, 76o, J3s, T4s, 43s, K5o, 84s, 63s, J2s, T7o, T3s, 86o, 65o, 94s, K4o,52s, T2s, 93s, J7o, 73s, Q6o, 96o, Q7o, 92s, K3o, 54o, 42s, 75o,62s, 83s, Q5o, T6o, 82s, K2o, 32s, 85o, J6o, 64o, Q4o, 72s, J5o,95o, Q3o, 53o, J4o, 74o, Q2o, T5o, J3o, T4o, 43o, 84o, 63o, J2o,T3o, 94o, 52o, T2o, 93o, 73o, 92o, 42o, 62o, 83o, 82o, 32o, 72o,
"Call" handrankings:
AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, AKs, 99, AKo, AQs, AJs, AQo, 88, ATs,AJo, ATo, 77, A9s, KQs, A8s, 66, A9o, KJs, A7s, KQo, KTs, A8o,55, A6s, KJo, A5s, A7o, QJs, A4s, KTo, K9s, 44, A3s, QTs, A2s,A6o, A5o, QJo, K8s, 33, A4o, K9o, JTs, K7s, A3o, Q9s, QTo, A2o,K6s, 22, K5s, K8o, J9s, Q8s, JTo, K4s, K7o, Q9o, T9s, K3s, Q7s,J8s, K2s, K6o, Q6s, T8s, K5o, J9o, Q8o, Q5s, J7s, 98s, K4o, Q4s,T9o, Q3s, K3o, T7s, J8o, Q7o, Q2s, 87s, 97s, J6s, K2o, Q6o, J5s,T6s, T8o, J4s, 76s, Q5o, 86s, 96s, 98o, J7o, J3s, 65s, Q4o, J2s,75s, T5s, 54s, T7o, Q3o, 85s, T4s, 95s, 87o, 97o, J6o, Q2o, T3s,64s, J5o, 74s, T2s, 53s, T6o, 84s, 76o, 94s, J4o, 86o, 96o, 43s,93s, 63s, J3o, 92s, 65o, 73s, 52s, J2o, 83s, 75o, T5o, 54o, 82s,85o, 42s, 95o, T4o, 62s, 32s, 64o, T3o, 72s, 74o, 53o, T2o, 84o,94o, 43o, 93o, 63o, 92o, 73o, 52o, 83o, 82o, 42o, 62o, 32o, 72o,
I did not develop these rankings and, to be honest, I'm not entirely certain where I got them. They likely came out of somebody's U of Alberta thesis paper about finding Nash equilibrium in NL hold'em or some such thing (or possibly the "Mathematics of Poker"... as I write this I do not have my copy with me). I settled on them long ago while experimenting with poker programming and well before I had any concept of "SnG Solver".
The most important criteria for SnG Solver with respect to handrankings is that the matchup EVs are as continuous as possible over a wide variety of situations. This helps keep the math stable when trying to find range equilibria. To this end, these handrankings seem reasonable and have worked pretty well.
In retrospect, I suspect just using Sklansky-Karlson might have worked just as well and having a single ranking would have saved me a lot of programming work vs using separate push/call rankings. Oh well.
So while these suit the purposes of SnG Solver, I have no basis to try to tell you that they're better than any other handranking. But I
can tell you that other than for very specific situations, trying to find the "best" handranking is sort of like trying to find the best snowflake... any victory will be fleeting and you'll go crazy in the process.
At the moment, it is not practical to have user customizable handranks... but it has always been my intention to ultimately support completely unrestricted ranges. I have a plan for this, but I am probably not going to get to it anytime soon. On this note, the
tentative roadmap for SnG Solver looks something like this:
1.0.x <= bug fixing, better HH support, UI tweaks, performance improvements, etc...
1.1 <= Top-secret, mind-blowing new feature
1.2 <= unrestricted ranges
Anyways, I hope that helped clear things up. I really appreciate the patronage and GL to you and your horses!