This great software is based on our successful Hold'em Equilab and is the best standalone tool in the world for Omaha.

With this program, you will be able to calculate the equity between hands but also between ranges, something which has not been done before for Omaha in such an easy way.

Download PokerStrategy.com Equilab Omaha for free

Feedback & developer-powered support in our dedicated forum

Demo video:



Range selection

[img]resources.pokerstrategy.com/2011/11/07/omaha-equilab-range-selection.jpg[/img]
Selection of pre-defined ranges

[img]resources.pokerstrategy.com/2011/11/07/omaha-equilab-hand-range-explorer.jpg[/img]
Exploration of hand ranges


Equity graphs


Hand vs Hand analyser


Flop outs counter

Download PokerStrategy.com Equilab Omaha for free

Feedback & developer-powered support in our dedicated forum

whats the difference between how you calculate equity and how PPT does?

FWIW, here is the documentation on how the propokertools graphs are generated:

http://propokertools.com/oracle_help/glossary#graph

I could not find any documentation for the equilab graphing algorithm, so I am not sure how to interpret the data. It looks closer to the PPT "hand vs range" graph, but I have found some discrepencies there, too.

It would appear that the "propokertools" graph in this tool is using the PPT "hand vs hand" algorithm - see my link above for the differences between the two.

Theres a tiny bug, if you erase flop cards with backspace it will leave one flop card left and jump cursor to dead card input.

Answer from our developer nopi aka Jochen (Original here in German):

What's the difference between the PokerProTools (PPT) Graphs and our "Exact Equity Graphs"?

PPT calculates the Hand vs Hand Graph as follows:
1. Take a random hand from both ranges.
2. Take a random flop (turn/river).
3. Calculate Equity.
4. Repeat X times.

PPT calculates the Range vs Hand Graph as follows:
1. Take a random hand from the first range.
2. Take a random flop (turn/river).
3. Calculate the Equity of this hand vs a range.
4. Repeat X times.

According to PPT, this is the "at least equity versus ...".
Whether you agree to that or not - decide for yourself.

We thought this can lead to confusion, which is why we decided to have exact Equities for the Equilab Omaha.

The Equilab Omaha calculates the Equity Graph as follows:
1. Take a random flop (turn/river).
2. Calculate the Equity of the full ranges on this board.
3. Repeat X times.

In theory, X needs to be 22,100 to have a precise result. But that would take a long time for ranges. We tested this and found out that a sufficiently large number of flops already brings very precise results.


Here, it also becomes clear why our Hand vs Hand Graphs look very similar to those of PPT: it's always just one hand of the "ranges".

The real difference becomes visible, when real ranges come into play.

Example:
AAAA vs ****


According to PPT, AAAA has on 92% of the flops "at least 0% equity". If "at least 0%" is enough for you, PPT serves you well here, I guess

But it's a fact that AAAA has a equity of at least about 32% on any flop. That's what you see with the blue line.

That's why we are convinced that the "exact Equities" graph is exactly that what people always wanted to read into PPT graphs (but what the PPT graphs could not really deliver due to that "at least ..." approximation).

Thank you for posting what you are computing with your graph. I can see now we are comparing apples and oranges. Or rather, apples, oranges, and tangerines (I will pass on the term "exact" in order to avoid making a value judgment). I think all three graphs are useful, they are just computing different things. Here is a list of how each works and what I think they are good for (I will assume 2 hands preflop hands specified for simplicity)

Apple (aka PPT Hand vs Hand Graph)
This graph shows you the equities on the flop when the hands are turned face up. It is useful as an "upper bound" on equity - it shows you the best you could possibly do on a large number of flops if you could see your opponents hand.

Orange (aka PPT Hand vs Range Graph)
This graph shows you the equity on the a number of random flops when hero's hand is known, but the opponents hand is still a range. This is useful to see what your equity is against another range "in the dark" on a large sampling of flops. This has been the default on the downloadable Odds Oracle for months now.

Tangerine (aka Equilab Graph)
Similar to Orange, this graph picks a random sampling of flops and then does a range vs range simulation. This is useful visualizing a list of flop scenarios.


Oranges and Tangerines are similar, but not the same. How are they different, you might ask? It has to do with how the flops are picked. In the Orange (PPT - first graph) version, it is assumed that the hands for each player are picked simultaneously with the flop, so not all flops will be equally likely. In the Tangerine (Equilab - second graph), it would appear that all flops are picked without regard to the players' ranges (which matches the description given in the post above). Here is an example contrasting the two - you'll notice that the propokertools graph is more optimistic. This is because the propokertools graph does not pick flops with aces as often as equilab, as there are two aces in the opposing range.

Well I'm gonna stick with PPT but the pokerstrategy equilab seems like good software.

I find the range selector annoying because you can only select one range option at the time or am I not doing it correct?

Bugs in range selection:
Marginal hands, all marginal hands under jeff hwang is missing.
Hand strength classification-speculative hands is set to 100%
-Marginal hands is set to 100%

I now believe that the equilab graph is broken. The two graphs below should be the same, but are not.

Let's graph AsAhJsJh vs a random hand (PPT hand vs range gives very similar results, FWIW)



Now let's graph AAJJ /ds (that's equilab parlance for Ace-Ace-Jack-Jack double-suited) vs a random hand



The corresponding PPT hand vs range graph does not change when run over a large number of trials (using AAJJ$ds in PPT-speak), as one would expect. The equilab graph is significantly different, however (in particular, look at the "20 percent of flops" line - there is more than a 10% difference there - furthermore one graph stays above 50% equity for far longer than the other).

Why the difference?

- bachfan @ ProPokerTools

P.S. While there is some variation for each graph generated in equilab due to randomness, I tried to pick the most representative graphs (there is no way to increase the trial time for graphs that I could find). After a bunch of graphs of each, I could never get AAJJ/ds to have less than about 75% equity on 20% of flops, and I could never get AsAhJsJh to have more than about 71% equity on 20% of flops.

P.P.S. I suspect the difference is, again, a result of how the flops are picked. I am guessing that in the first graph, equilab correctly removes flops that contain the Js or Jh, thus decreasing the probability of a jack on the flop, while in the second graph it does not adjust the probabilities, and as a result, AAJJ/ds hits a jack more often than it should.

P.P.P.S. I'm curious to hear what the equilab folks think - it would be nice to have this cleared up. There are definitely some nice things about the equilab program, and it's healthy for everyone to have some worthy competition, but my main concern is and has always been getting the data right, so please don't take this as some kind of attack - this stuff can be surprisingly hard to get right, and PPT has had errors in the past (as has all software). I will say, however, that contrasting "propokertools" with "exact equities" is somewhat provocative and implies that the equilab graph is somehow superior, when in fact they are trying to answer different questions. I suspect once the equilab graph is fixed it will have the same behavior as the PPT hand vs range graph anyway.

P.P.P.P.S. This post is getting too long. Sorry.

We'll get you an answer pretty soon!

Dear bachfan,

Many thanks for your feedback. We’d like to briefly look at the points you’ve raised.

Apples, Oranges and Tangerines

The difference between "Oranges" and "Tangerines" is not in the flop selection. It goes without saying that in Equilab Omaha, those flops which conflict with the given hands or ranges are not selected. The difference is in the calculation method and in this example, probably in the low number of flops considered. Due to potentially long calculation times, the internal selection of the number of flops and the iteration depth of the calculation were restricted. However generally, this should represent a suitable compromise between precision and speed.

We have created a precise graph for the example "7s7h5c2d vs. AA**". So we haven’t taken a large number of randomly generated flops for this example, but rather all the various permutations. Of the C (52, 3) = 22,100 possible flops, there are precisely 17,292 in this example without any collusion with the given hand or range. As a result, we get the following graph:


We believe that the differences between both graphs (PPT and Equilab Omaha) and this graph lie in the number of flops selected and the depth of iteration alone. Why the Equilab Omaha graph is almost always a bit below this and why the PPT graph almost always a bit above this is a research topic we will be happy to investigate in the future. We are also just as excited about the results. However, the fact is that there are some flops where "7s7h5c2d" has an equity of precisely zero (flops with two aces). In our opinion, this is well represented by the small zero percentage of the blue line far right, near the 100 % mark.


"AsAhJsJh vs. AA**“ vs. "AAJJ/ds vs. AA**"

We think that these two graphs must be different.

In the first instance, a hand is calculated against a range. Here, PPT HvR and Omaha Equilab should create more or less the same graphs.
However, in the second instance, a range is calculated against a range. Here we can clearly see the difference between the calculation methods. Using flops, Equilab Omaha calculates the equity of "range vs. range". Clearly, PPT takes a hand from the first range each time and then calculates this against the range. Do please correct us if we have misunderstood this.
If you now actually calculate "range vs. range", you can instantly see that the graph from the hand "AsAhJsJh" must be significantly lower than graphs with the range "AAJJ/ds" (6 combinations). For example, "AsAhJsJh" on the flop "7d6d5d" only has remaining equity of approx. 27%. In contrast, "AAJJ/ds" on the same flop has equity of over 37%. It’s easy to see here that these graphs must be different.

From the calculation methods selected, we can also explain why both PPT graphs are the same in this case. PPT does not calculate equity with the entire initial range given, but takes a random hand combination from this range each time.

In order to give a stable basis for discussion, we have also calculated the graphs for all permutations here.
"AsAhJsJh vs. AA*" with 15,180 flops:


"AAJJ/ds vs. AA*" with 17,292 flops:


We will double-check to what extent the quality of the graphs can be optimised. It may make sense to let the user choose whether he wants to iterate all flops or if he wants a certain number of random flops to be calculated.

Nomenclature:
The descriptions "propokertools" and "exact equities" are pretty much dictated by history and are in no way pejorative or similar. We will replace these in the next update with more suitable descriptions, e.g something such as "hand vs. hand" and "hand vs. range or range vs. range".


All the best from Germany, nopi, PokerStrategy.com

Thanks for your reply, I think we're getting somewhere!

Summary
I think we can now summarize the differences between the three graphs with a single variable - how many hands are known on the flop? I've given descriptive names which may help (sorry about the fruit before)

ALL hands known = PPT hvh graph = 'psychic' perspective
ONE hand known = PPT hvr graph = 'player' perspective
NO hands known = Equilab graph = 'outside observer' ('guy on the rail? ') perspective

I hope I have it nailed this time - let me know if this matches your intuition.

Those Pesky Flop Probabilities
The only thing I'm not sure about with the "outside observer" graph has to do with the flop probabilities. In the 'psychic' and 'player' graphs, the probability of the flop depends on the ranges given for each player (required (trivially) in the 'psychic' case, somewhat more complicated but clearly correct to my mind with the 'player' case). Put another way, in these two graphs, the flops were dealt AFTER hands were dealt for each player. In the Equilab 'outside observer' graph, the flops were dealt BEFORE hands were dealt for each player. To highlight the difference, here is what the 'outside observer' graph seems to be answering now:

"Deal a large number of random flops. What are the equities for range X vs range Y? (discard flops that cause range X or range Y to be empty)"

The alternative is to answer the question:

"Deal a large number of random matchups of range X vs range Y. For each matchup, deal a random flop. What are the equities?"

The asymmetry I posted about with AAJJ/ds is, I believe, because you are answering the first question - I thought you were answering the second (and indeed, it is easy to show that in the second case the results should be identical).

Cheers,
Dan @ ProPokerTools

so....which way is the "right" way or the most useful ?

Review from Poker Fuse:
http://pokerfuse.com/features/review...ntent=FaceBook