[OFFICIAL Support Thread] HoldemResources Calculator

I think you have the though process right in your example, yes.

It is usually quite hard to really interpret results though. FGS does not only affect the BU pushing range, but also the calling ranges as well as the "action behind".

In your example, calculating with FGS also means SB vs BB will be less likely to end up all in if BU folds (65% Push & 14% Call with FGS, instead of ICM's 85% Push & 17% Call.) This additionally loosens up the BU pushing range. You should definitely double check if the FGS ranges for villains are still realistic for your games.

In this particular spot i think FGS-1 may be too loose on the button, as deeper FGS is tighter again. But this is a rather unstable spot and the FGS results change quite a bit depending on the depth. (See: "Horizon effect")

Are there any good free videos on how to use this? Or like standard ranges and stuff like that?

I did an introductory live coaching for PS a few weeks back, but it seems the recording is no longer available. I will try to get a replacement video soon.

(There are a few free HRC videos around, but i believe none of them are in English.)

As for standard ranges:
The program initializes ranges with a Nash approximation. These ranges are usually a very good starting point, unless you have reliable reads that your opponents will play differently.

Hi,

To find EV(raise) we plot "Range vs Player Equities" and check how much we gain by playing given strategy, but how to figure out EV (raise/fold) and EV (raise/call)? If it is not possible at the moment could you display it somewhere?

I would like to also switch display EV in range chart relative to stacks at beginning of the hand.

To see the EV of a raise for a given hand, simply select your open-raising range and check the EQDiff value for the hand in the range table.

This value is calculated based on the strategy you have defined for the hand.

If a hand is in your open raising range, but not in the range for calling off - then the displayed EV for raising is the raise/fold EV. (And the other way around, hands included in your call-off range are calculated as raise/call.)

So to see raise/fold or raise/call EVs, you simply add/remove the hand from the various call-off ranges.

yep, but I am looking overall EV for particular action

Hm, so you basically want to know the aggregate raising EV of all raise/folding or raise/calling hands?

This is not possible in the current version and i am not sure how this would be useful tbh. Could you please elaborate a bit on what you are trying to achieve?

(It also gets somewhat complicated with hands that are raise/calling against some opponents, and raise/folding against others.)

Yes.

I use the program also as a learning tool for Nash equilibrium and particulary for indifference principle. I just wanted to know what actions EV hold in some situations and when not.

additionaly I am looking for aggregate of open-push and open-fold action

Hm, not sure if aggregate values are really what you are looking for.

The aggregate EV of bluffing/bluffcatching in equilibrium is basically always going to be >0EV. A player will almost never be indifferent with his entire range due to card removal effects.

I also can't think of any obvious practical applications for overall line EVs. If you just want to compare EV of playing only minraising vs only open-shoving vs combined, that is already possible anyway.

How to interpret calculations like this:

In this spot in equilibrium UTG has min-raising range = 0% (strategy) however other players at the leaf have non-zero frequency ranges (strategy).

Well, here it means that the alternative option for UTG (i.e.: open shoving?) is better for all UTG hands in equilibrium.

If callers would adjust to 0% calling/3b frequencies, UTG could exploit by minraise bluffing. The other players need to have some calling/3b ranges that keep UTGs minraising less profitable than shoving.

(Note that these calling/3b ranges of other players do not violate the equilibrium condition. They can not increase their EV by changing these ranges. Not can UTG profitably add any hands to his minraising range.)

Hi,

please help me with these two things:

1. I could not put in the HRC hand histories from HEM2 and the site Fulltilt and the net Ongame

2. I don´t know which result is right eg. in this hand: blinds 100/200/20

UTG 4530 limp
UTG1 3120
Hero CO 2258 steal
BU 35
SB 3140
BB 1917

When UTG limps 25%, the calculator gives for steal CO 7.8% at 300 calculations and at 1000 calculations it is quite similar.

But there are 70% +EV hands. Is this the correct result which I should take?

1) there was a fix for the latest FTP format changes yesterday. If you have issues with FTP histories, please make sure you use the latest version. If you still have any troubles, please send some of the problematic HHs to support@holdemresources.net

2) "Green" means that stealing is more profitable than folding here, but for most of the hands over-limping is assumed to be even more profitable.

Note that postflop is assumed to be checked down, so the limping equity is almost certainly over-estimated. It is *not* recommended to allow limping lines for Hero, see below. Limping calculations are especially problematic here because of the extremely short BU.

If you are interested in only stealing or folding as CO, simply lock the CO over-limping range to 0% first and then run Fictitious Play again. The calculated range should then match the "green" part very closely, although the green part will likely change significantly after you re-calculate with limping locked out for CO.

1. is working now

2. the advice is very useful

Thank you!

why ranges is wrong?

I try your ranges but it seems they are fundamentally wrong. There is now way in the hand that you could AJo but A2s the gap here is huge and i think this is totally incorrect imo

I think at the very best Ao-As has 3 gaps between and Ko-Ks two gaps but in most hands i analyzed your ranges have huge gaps

Can you explain?

Hey Belthazor,

This may not be related to the topic here, but from the chart on the right, I see that HRC takes any hand that has a positive or 0 edge.

Does the HRC have a filter for a minimum edge when establishing pushing/calling ranges (Like SNG Wizzard %Edge parameter) ?

Thanks!

This wasnt my question. I asked why the range construction is fundamentally wrong

It isn't wrong belthazorrr

It's just because the ranges adapt to the calling ranges of villains. If their ranges mainly consists of high Ax (AT+). pushing with A9 or with A2 doesn't make much difference in equity.

Now suited hands do a lot better.

       Equity     Win     Tie
MP2    27.50%  25.43%   2.07% { A9o }
MP3    72.50%  70.43%   2.07% { 88+, AJs+, ATo+ }

       Equity     Win     Tie
MP2    30.98%  29.01%   1.98% { A2s }
MP3    69.02%  67.04%   1.98% { 88+, AJs+, ATo+ }

A2s has clearly more equity then A9o against a range like this. I can't see their exact ranges in your example, but I guess it will be something like that.

Originally posted by belthazorrrr

I try your ranges but it seems they are fundamentally wrong. There is now way in the hand that you could AJo but A2s the gap here is huge and i think this is totally incorrect imo

I think at the very best Ao-As has 3 gaps between and Ko-Ks two gaps but in most hands i analyzed your ranges have huge gaps

Can you explain?

The range may be unintuitive if you are used to constructing ranges by a fixed hand-ranking. But as Qubie explained above, the low Axs hands actually perform significantly better than ATo/A9o against tight calling ranges.

Obviously, there are also plenty of spots where A9o>A2s. There is no constant "gap" between suited/offsuit hands, it depents on the situation. That's why it is important to train with flexible ranges instead of fixed hand-rankings.

Originally posted by unshpe

..., I see that HRC takes any hand that has a positive or 0 edge.

Does the HRC have a filter for a minimum edge when establishing pushing/calling ranges (Like SNG Wizzard %Edge parameter) ?

Yes, you can filter hands by edge. Right click the range: Edit Range: Select by Edge.

Originally posted by plexiq

Originally posted by belthazorrrr

I try your ranges but it seems they are fundamentally wrong. There is now way in the hand that you could AJo but A2s the gap here is huge and i think this is totally incorrect imo

I think at the very best Ao-As has 3 gaps between and Ko-Ks two gaps but in most hands i analyzed your ranges have huge gaps

Can you explain?

The range may be unintuitive if you are used to constructing ranges by a fixed hand-ranking. But as Qubie explained above, the low Axs hands actually perform significantly better than ATo/A9o against tight calling ranges.

Obviously, there are also plenty of spots where A9o>A2s. There is no constant "gap" between suited/offsuit hands, it depents on the situation. That's why it is important to train with flexible ranges instead of fixed hand-rankings.

Can you explain me this? Thank you