Hey fellow 2+2ers,

about a year ago I was looking for ppl to test a program called 'DeuceSevenCrunsher' in this post:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/16...sters-1471785/

In short, the program is a complex deuce-to-seven Lowball poker simulator, where arbitrary ranges and strategies can be simulated and equities (as well as many more statistics) obtained.

Around new year I decided to write a online browser version of the program. That is now done! You can find it under:

http://deucesevencrunsher.azurewebsites.net/

I'd be very happy if some of you looked into it and gave me some feedback! It is still in testing phase as I'm sure there are some kinks in it.

If you want more background information, check out my homepage:
http://www.EluciusSoft.com/

and there you'll also find more information about the desktop version
http://www.EluciusSoft.com/DeuceSevenCrunsher-D7C/

Also, if you have any comments, suggestions etc. feel free to post them in this thread or contact me privately.

Cheers,
Guy (a.k.a. EluciusFTW)

Hey Y'all!

The program has been up and running a good month now, and I quickly realized that the user interface was not friendly enough.

I'm happy to announce that I published a major update to the program today. The UI has been completely worked over, and I think you will find it much easier to configure and run simulations now! There are still some small kinks which I am aware of, and I'm sure many of which I am not aware, so feedback is always appreciated.

Expect minor updates daily for the next couple of weeks.

Cheers,
Guy (a.k.a. EluciusFTW)

Hey Y'all!

I'm happy to announce that I have again published a major update to the program today.

The three main new features are:

- I have added two options to the simulation: 'Allow Blockers' and 'Allow more cards'. What they do exactly you can find out on the page
- I have added a full description of the simulation and how it works. Rightfully so you should not trust a webpage that magically spits out numbers. At least you now know how they are produced. Or have to trust me that the description matches the code. But, ...
- ... if you are not convinced yet, this might help: After running a simulation you can now look at all hand histories! You can check precisely if teh simulation did what you wanted it to do, etc. These hand histores are not saved though, they are not available for past simulations, but only for the ones that have just run.

I'd be happy if you check it out and tell me what you think!

Cheers,
Guy (a.k.a. EluciusFTW)

Hey Y'all!

I have updated D7C again today. This update contains a new functionality, namely to analyze ranges - it shows all combos in the range, counts them, shows all hands that lie in the combo - and also determines the propability (resp. size) of the range.

Here is a screenshot of an example, to give you an idea. As a range I picked all made 8s or better, together with all 4-card 9s except 98s, and I allow the hands to have blockers.


That's all for this time,
as always, looking forward to your feedback,

Cheers,
Guy (a.k.a. EluciusFTW)

I think it's a great tool, relatively easy to use with a nice and simple design. I'll give a more constructive feedback once i've played around with the simulator.

Thx, appreciated :-) And am looking forward to ome more critique and feedback later ... Have fun!

I don't really have a lot of criticism, only one aspect that i found annoying:

Editing ranges seems impossible. Let's say i create a range, save it and run the simulation but later that day, i want to simulate a slightly different range. It'd be much easier to have the strategy windows filled in with a saved range instead of copy-pasting the whole range from the results page.

Thanks for your input. I don't quite get the problem, though. When configuring the simulation, you can enter the palyer ranges directly, you don't have to copy them from the ranges page. You can use the same syntax there. Most ranges can be defined with 20 characters or less, in my experience.

But: I will work on the range syntax in near future! There are some things that are still quite complicated to define. I might add what you suggested then, namely a possibility to save a defined range, and then a possibility to just select that when running a simulation. Probably also going to add predefined standard ranges then, like 'smooth 2-card draw to an eight (or better)'.

That being said, please don't expect it to happen too soon - more like in 6-8 weeks ... I'm finally going on vacation in a week, and will have to prepare and then catch up at my 'real job' some after I return :-)

So keep the ideas coming, all will be considered in due time!

Cheers,
ELuciusFTW (a.k.a. Guy)

It's not a real problem, mostly just me being too lazy to type in the complete range from scratch.

When you choose your own saved range, the strategy part stays empty. My idea was to automatically fill in the preedefined range to allow faster changs, for example when only changing the vs. pat on 3rd street range.

Hope that was more undestandable.

This is sweet. Just started playing around with the ranges and syntax tab and a couple of things I've noticed:

975+ omits 876, which to my mind is an error.

Also when I go from range
76+,975+,9875+,98764+
to range
2,76+,975+,9875+,98764+
the 'Probability of range' goes from
69.6%
to
33.54%

which makes no sense at all

Looking now at the simulation tab, I'm not seeing an option to include blockers within starting ranges, which I suppose might not matter too much for 6max scenarios? But as a headsup player quite a lot of my opening, defending and 3betting combos are predicated on the specifics of discards, so that's kind of a big feature to be missing imo. I guess one could work around it a bit using the exclamation mark, but I think the syntax would have to be elaborated to fully solve the problem.

Hey CoronalDischarge,
Happy to hear that you like the program :-)

I'm on vacation now, and will be the coming week so I'll keep it short: 975+ does not contain 876, because the + means that there is a card of that value or better for each value you specify. For 876, you need the 9 to cover the 8, the 7 for the 7, but now you have a 6 left that is not 5+.

About the 2nd issue you mentioned, I tried it and got the same results, seems weird, but I don't see it right now. I will def clarify that once I'm back at home on my coding machine.

And yes: I know of the importance, and there will soon be a possibility to enter explicit blockers! Thanks for the input. Also, I will probably add more syntax rules/symbols because there are definitely ranges that are hard and clumsy to define atm.

Keep it coming!
EluciusFTW.

Yeah just being able to input stuff like 852(2) and 852(!2) would be a great addition. Will probs come back with some feedback once I've played with it more.