Off course they're chips, that's why it's easy to count when limit is 0.5/1$ - it's like you count in bb's, isnt't it?

100$ stack=100 bb stack, am I right?

Thank you

New warning dialog:

Sorry, but I can't chose a particular hands or mayby I'm doing someting wrong?



For example I decided to chose QdJd, but when click raise button, all hands are moving in. And I can't refuse my previous action.

The "Selected hands" area on the left is to show you which hands you have selected. It's not meant for selecting combos separately.

To make it clearer, I have removed the ability to select rows in that list box.

guyupstairs, so what is the answer? It is going to be the same way?

The answer is that:

1. There's no easy way for me to do it, but...
2. I'll do it because so many people ask for it, but...
3. It's not at the top of my list if things to do right now, but...
4. In the meantime, I'm happy to change the ranges in the current situations, or add new situations where the ranges are tighter or looser. So if there's a situation you want to train, let me know.

Can you make an option to raise to different sizes?

Just a very basic example in CAP, I mr the sb, now the bb wants to have the option to 3b to 4.5bb with some hands and jam other hands. If he doesn't have both options its difficult to make something close to real ranges.

Also frequently want different sizing for cbets etc.

This is on my list of things to do when I have nothing better to do. Here's why.

You're not the first person to ask for this, and this is definitely something that many people do in real games: raise different amounts with different hands.

On the other hand, it's generally bad strategy, and easily exploitable. It's hard enough balancing two ranges (call / raise); balancing three ranges (call / small raise / large raise) is just about impossible, and I've never seen anyone do it. (footnote)

For example, if I implemented this and you started making small 3bets as well as jam 3bets in CAP, your opponent would quickly adjust to never call your small 3bets. If he jams the range he would have called a 3bet shove with, what are you going to do? You'll find yourself priced in with your 3bet bluffs, so you might as well have just 3bet shoved.

My point is, in almost all cases when you start doing this, you'll get exploited and want to stop doing this. I don't have any proof of this, and it's possible I'm wrong, but I have a strong feeling that this would generally be the case.

But I will do it eventually.

(footnote: I think I might have seen Cates doing this against Dwan in the durrrr challenge. Cates was sometimes minraising the button, and sometimes 2.5x (or maybe it was 2.5x / 3x). At the time, I thought he probably had a range for each, and he'd just randomly choose which way he was going to play each hand. But it's possible that he was actually balancing them, 2xing more weak hands than a normal 2x open range, and 2.5xing more strong hands than a normal 2.5x opening range. But if this is so, it's kind of the exception that proves the rule: Cates is both the only person I've ever see do this, and the best heads-up player in the world.)

I'm very confident in saying 20-30bbs calls for (at least) two different 3bet sizes. Cf. the mersenneary ebook, Raiser's Edge, Expert HU NLHE, watching any of the top cap players, etc.

Yes I know that. But those guys are playing exploitively. It works against unknowns, due to the population's tendency to play badly, and to read those ranges incorrectly. If their opponents knew their ranges, it'd be a different story.

Again, I offer no proof, I accept that I might be wrong, and I agree that it'd be interesting to try it whether I'm right or not.

Yeah, you're (almost certainly) wrong. Take a look at ch.16 in Raiser's Edge, or pp.61ff in EHUNLHE.

I wish I could. I don't have those books. But I'll accept what you say, your authority. I'll try to keep those references in mind, in case I ever come across a copy of either of those books.

Thats actually completely incorrect. Maybe in 100bb poker your sizes should be consistent, but in hyper husngs you probably won't be a winning player if you only have one raise size in each spot.
When the best regs play against each other they use different sizes with different hands.

Your example misses that if your opponent never flats 3bets, you can just 3bet non allin every time. Since obviously he can't 4b shove enough hands to stop you from 3b atc, he has to flat some of the time. Once he has a flatting range, we now want to be shoving hands like 22 that do very bad vs his flats.

If you were always priced in to call the 4bet then you are correct that different 3b sizes are not needed, but above 16 or 17bb that is clearly not the case.

Yes, he can.

(Also, your conclusion seems to be that you can't make only small 3bets, but doesn't rule out making only shoves.)

It's fairly trivial that at a certain stack depth the sb can not 4b shove enough to maintain the bbs indifference between 3b bluffing and folding. That stack depth is entirely dependent on the optimal opening frequency.

Also clearly only 3bs is inferior to NAI3b when the proposed sb start is to only 4bs or fold. we lose less with our bluffs and win at least as much (actually more) with our value.

Note: I think your software is great and have enjoyed using it. This is my only complaint. Without the option for different raise sizes its fun to play with but tough to replicate how regs actually play. With the option for different raise sizes it would be awesome.

I could keep arguing the theory but let me summarize my position this way:

• There are probably times when it is (optimally) correct to have multiple 3bet sizes.
• It's not easy demonstrable that this is the case, even if it is easy to show that people do it.
• It's possibly correct to have different sizes for opening bets, 4bets, cbets etc. but it's even less clear, and far less common.

Again, I'll do this eventually (if I can figure out what the UI should look like!). In the mean time, consider this: the one place where is seems easy to demonstrate that you want two 3bet sizes is 20 BB CAP HU / Hyper HUSnG. Well, if that's the case then I don't think you really need Range vs. Range. You know how to play well preflop in those games, and there's no meaningful postflop play (or it's not hard to calculate correct play for that one remaining street).

Range vs. Range is really about postflop play (footnote), or at least deepstack play. That's where the biggest mistakes are made. That's where there's money to be made in today's games. Small-stakes to mid-stakes regulars are currently trading massive mistakes in the postflop game, and if you can step in there with good postflop play, you can make a killing.

(Footnote: RvR does have some meaningful things to say about preflop play, like finding out that you're making an automatic profit with your UTG opens in 6-max, or finding out exactly which bluff-shoves and which calls were correct. Essentially, this is optimizing your preflop ranges against your opponents'.)

Cap hu and hyper hu strategy fundamentally rests on differentiating hu strategy, and it's not implausible to want to vary 3b sizing in a deeper setting either.

Rangevrange can help extremely in these game types, there's far more postflop play than someone unfamiliar with the games would expect, as can be evidenced by your desultory comments towards shallow hu games.

Additionally, hyper husngs are the most played variant because there is the most money to be made there (in todays games, gasp). RvR could be a very useful tool even for these games literally with just this one feature. Please reconsider and implement such.

+1 to everything duncelanas said, plz implement this asap if possible

Too late to edit here, but I meant "differentiating sizing strategy" there. It's core to how basically every hu hyper reg actually plays. Theoretical argument aside (too tired to go through it), ibav is correct that in practice that's how the games play and it could be a very useful tool for hu hyper players with just this one feature added.

I'm convinced.

I'm glad to hear you talk so positively about Range vs. Range. I didn't mean to be desultory (had to look it up, still didn't make much sense, but whatever). But you've got to admit that when you play NLHE postflop with a SPR=1, the game is fairly simple. I absolutely accept that there is more postflop play 20 BB deep than most people realise! There are limp pots, there are minbet pots, there are limp/call pots, and these are common and lead to spots that 100 BB stacked 6-max players have no clue how to play. (I should say "play well"; they probably have more confidence than is justified.)

Of course, it's still going to have to wait a while. I'm in the middle of developing another feature – and it'll be relevant to all types of games (even if HHUSNGs are the most played).

You made me look this up and apparently this word didn't mean what I thought it did, so that's now fixed. Thanks

I will agree that shallower play can be quite restrictive (though there's still more to it than most think). But yeah, the real key is 20bb+ play where we get to the flop with SPR 4-5, where there's still room for a decent amount of play on 2 streets (rivers still tend to be shove/fold). Obviously you haven't been studying hyper theory or whatever as you don't play them, so just to fill in -- it's pretty standard for regs to have a couple different nonallin 3b sizes as well as a 3b shove range.

While it wouldn't quite be optimal, it would be a huge improvement if you just added a "jam" range. So, players set fold/call/raise (to one raise size)/jam. The ability to differentiate between 3b t85 and t100, while still important, is nowhere near the magnitude of having to jam a hand like KK (awful) if you jam A2s (standard) 20+ deep vs non-allin 3betting KK (not awful) and having to flat A2s.

So even this one distinction would allow for a relatively accurate simulation of play. Just the distinction between jamming and non-allin raising would be enough to make it very useful, but I've tried the tool with my friends and I wound up playing a strategy where I flatted a ton of hands I would have been 3betting otherwise because I didn't want to 3b jam them and I wanted to non-allin 3b other stuff. It required a huge shift in fundamental strategy.

Maybe this sort of distinction would be easier than figuring out how to code in multiple variable raise sizes?

I should clarify that I meant out of any HU variant (all types of husngs and cash), don't know how the numbers stack up with other games (other cash gametypes, plo, etc). But there's also more money in them than basically any other sng variant.

And it's okay waiting, obviously the software is work in progress. It's just good to get this on the slate.

just downloaded it and had a play around, here's my feedback:

- would be many times more useful if you could input your own ranges. Some of the ranges I was playing seemed quite far removed from how I actually play which obviously limits how well I can use this training to improve my play in game.
- I worked through 1 hand in advanced training vs myself - unless I was missing something (very possible) we only actually played out the most frequently occurring scenario to the river. we didn't play play out the flop bet (from the OOP player) scenario, check-raise scenario or turn XR scenario. is this deliberate or a bug or am I using the software wrong?
- multiple turns/rivers - In the hand I played the IP player got an extremely good river card that completed a lot of his semi-bluffs. I think it would add an extra layer to be able to lock the board and generate numerous random turn and river combos to work through the ramifications of each.

Interesting program, could go places with the right tweaks. Cheers!

Any news?

+1

Is this just for cash games?