[OFFICIAL Support Thread] HoldemResources Calculator

The "older generation" tools only allow you to calculate with ranges that are constructed by hand-ranking, instead of actually picking the best hands based on the situation. (This makes the calculations much easier to carry out.)

If you assign a Push range to be 20% in Wiz, those 20% will always be the same hands based on some hand ranking. (I believe it uses Sklansky-Chubukov as ranking? Not exactly sure though.) Those are usually *not* the best 20% of hands for the situation.

The consequence for users is that they become used to seeing ranges of a fixed structure, independent on the situation. And using a fixed structure like this can be a considerable mistake, as you see in the example you posted.

If you select a 20% range in HRC it uses the best performing 20% as a default, based on the situation. (You still have the option to add/remove individual hands.) This helps users to recognize that the structure of optimal ranges depends on the situation.

Wizard takes some precalculated ranges (it's not always sklansky chubukov in the call ranges). It's a trade off really, they chose to go with precalculated ranges to be able to have instant calculations done. The trade off is that it isn't as accurate and results in some 'wrong' ranges in some places. Usually it's not too big of a deal though but in some places there will be a reasonable amount of differences.

Originally posted by Qubie
It's a trade off really, they chose to go with precalculated ranges to be able to have instant calculations done.

I don't think there is any good argument for using restricted ranges for regular analysis, other than simpler implementation.

An entire equity calculation in Wizard is the rough equivalent of a single Fictitious Play iteration. (HRC does these calculations on the fly every time you edit a range, this is typically done in a fraction of a second and usually barely noticable at all.)

Unrestricted range calculations are not a runtime issue for regular analysis if properly optimized, it is just the Nash calculations that take time in HRC.

(There is definitely a valid argument for using handranking restricted ranges for the Nash calculations though, e.g. Quick Analyze uses that. But for regular equity calculations it really should not be an issue.)

[Sorry for the marketing rant, lol. There are other products that have nicely optimized unrestricted range evaluation, this is not exclusive to HRC.]

agreed really.
Should have added that it probably was needed at the time wizard was made which is already a long while ago.

These days it's another story where pc's are immensely more powerfull then they where years ago.

That's what I think at least. I have some knowledge but I'm not an expert after all.

Yeah, the reasoning was completely legitimate back when SW1 was originally released. My last post was only in reference to the computing power we have available on today's machines, back then it was a different story.

If callers would adjust to 0% calling/3b frequencies, UTG could exploit by minraise bluffing.

What you meant at this sentence? Is this line (with 0% frequency) exploitable line meaning other players could exploit?

Originally posted by qlencjusz

Why HRC doesnt display EV for other players in this leaf instead "n/a"?

Here is extreme example where UTG shoves for 100bb and other players will call with QQ+. Isn't wrong since UTG can only profitably shove KK+? Can we conclude how UTG range looks like when he takes non-equilibrium line?

Originally posted by qlencjusz

If callers would adjust to 0% calling/3b frequencies, UTG could exploit by minraise bluffing.

What you meant at this sentence? Is this line (with 0% frequency) exploitable line meaning other players could exploit?

No, the 0% opening range is not exploitable. I was talking about the calling/re-shoving ranges. It would be exploitable if the other players would *call/re-shove* with a 0% range.

Obviously, then UTG could profitably minraise bluff every single hand. (I believe i explained this in more details in my previous reply, please check up my older post.)

Why HRC doesnt display EV for other players in this leaf instead "n/a"?

Since UTG never uses this line with any of his hands, EV for other players can not be evaluated. The EVs are available as soon as you assign any hands to UTGs pushing range.

Here is extreme example where UTG shoves for 100bb and other players will call with QQ+. Isn't wrong since UTG can only profitably shove KK+? Can we conclude how UTG range looks like when he takes non-equilibrium line?

UTG can't profitably open-shove *anything* here if opponents call with QQ+. (KK+ would obviously be more profitable to shove compared to folding, but opening to 3.5x is even better with KK+.)

If you are interested how a 100bb shoving range would look like, lock the UTG 3.5x raising range to 0% and re-adjust the ranges by running Fictitious Play, using the green button in the toolbar. (Make sure that UTGs shoving range is not locked before running Fictitious Play.)

Since the 3.5x open is then no longer available for UTG, there will be some hands in his open-shoving range, and the calling ranges will also adjust accordingly.

If NLH actions were restricted to only raising or folding (without calling non-allin bets) then GTO line would be the most profitable here (both are unexploitable)?

Not sure if i understand your question correctly.

In your example, if you restrict the game to raise-or-fold preflop and the only possible open sizings are raise-3.5x or open-shove, then the GTO solution is only using the raise-3.5x and no open shoves.

This strategy w/o open shoves is not exploitable in the abstract game.

Would it be possible to implement additional raise size (optional to choose by user)?

EDIT: Would it be possible when range is edited to choose weights for given hand (% of combos)?

Both is relatively easy to add calculation wise, since the engine already fully supports these features.

I think weighting hands can be added relatively easy via some hotkey.

Regarding multiple bet/raise sizes, i'll have to think about a way to add that without over-loading the user interface too much. I think very few users would care for that feature though.

Hi,

I would like to have up to 3 addtional (and optional) raise sizes.

I understand this is a potentially interesting calculation for advanced users, but it would be pretty high runtime and most likely only actively used by a handful of people. I definitely do not want to make the UI more complicated for the average user when adding support for this.

Editable game trees are something i would like to add in the future, and freely addable raise sizes would be a logical addition as part of that. I can not give you any sort of ETA for this though. Most likely not in the next few months, and certainly not within the current Beta cycle.

I just had time to scroll through this thread quickly but Nash is awesome. From what I understand though ICMizer is the nuts for these kind of calculations. Nash assumes that everyone else is playing optimally.

In the downloadable version, Nash are just the initial ranges. You are free to adjust them based on your reads, just like in ICMizer.

So can you provide only for me version with multiple bet sizings?

how about weighted ranges?

I added weighted ranges with the Beta update today.

To enable the Beta version see here:
http://www.holdemresources.net/h/products/hrc/beta-repository.html

-

Regarding multiple sizes:
I will think about a way to add this without making the UI more complicated. In any case, i won't be able to make any significant changes during the next 2 weeks due to vacation.

thank you very much

Hey plexiq. Could you give an explanation how one could use the graphs to his advantage, how to extract information out of them. I've checked them but still can't see how they can be of a practical use to me. Although I might be overlooking something.

Hi all,

I'd like to purchase Holdemresources Calculator. However at the page where I can choose my paypal as my payment option it also includes contact information that I need to fill in. I've purchased already a lot online and AFAIK its unnecessary for me to fill in that info and thus Im asking why? (btw of course i trust PS.com, i just like to know this! smile )..

Thx in advance

Grtzzz