[OFFICIAL Support Thread] HoldemResources Calculator

Thanks for the feedback!

The pre-configured payout structures are coming really soon, definitely with the next update.

Would be great if you could elaborate on the "workflow" changes you have in mind, feel free to mail support@holdemresources.net about it if you prefer.

(Regarding the forgotten CC: 18M is non-recurring as default, and all other subscriptions can be canceled right after the purchase with the link included in the order confirmation.)

I'll mail suggestions if something worth suggesting pops up, or I'll write here. Others may have useful input too.

Here is a minor detail: You could allow for commas as well as decimal points in the prizes entry fields. Reason: The numerical keypad to the right (which is much faster to use for me, I don't need to look at it when typing) on a typical keyboard produces a comma. Now, the "Finish" button is rather mysteriously disabled when something not allowed is present. [Surely, Java has suitable built in numerical entry fields, (or validation, when using standard windows entry fields). But I guess you knew that.]

A minor feature suggestion: Let "stacks before posting blinds and antes" be optional. While using a replayer (or watching a video) one usually has "stacks after posting blinds and antes".

The reason I don't like modal dialog boxes is because they tend to block a large part of the screen. I'll try to illustrate what I mean below, but don't take it too literally, because it's not like a bug or something like that: The main window of the application is still there, and frozen. For example, one may have a session in a replayer and want to analyze a hand. In this case one wants both the replayer and the "New push/fold" windows in sight because one is esentially copying numbers from one to another. In this spot it is quite likely that there will be a few system beeps, and a new try at it after moving the two applications to appropriate places on the screen. Things of this sort are less much less likely to annoy the user if modeless dialogs are used. [In fact, the online version is much better in this respect. I even get a few annoying system beeps now, when trying to formulate this understandably, switching back and forth between the browser and the calculator with "New push/fold" open :).]

The menu and the toolbar are, taken together, redundant. There could be options to show either one of them, or both, and then optionally using large icons + descriptive names.

Context sensitive help: A more or less brilliant thing from the past is "context sensitive help" when pressing F1. The "context" is the exact window handle that has keyboard focus, or in the case of a menu, what the mouse pointer is hovering over. This feature is definitely on my wishlist. The standard (crappy) solution of today (you don't use that, good,) is to take the user to a web page somewhere (or worse, a forum somewhere).

/Johan =

Thanks again for the input, much appreciated!

Can't give you an ETA for the changes, but i will try to add some of the smaller suggestions soon. (e.g. stack input format / validation, modal dialogs)

A minor feature suggestion: Let "stacks before posting blinds and antes" be optional. While using a replayer (or watching a video) one usually has "stacks after posting blinds and antes".

You can enter the stacks after posting, and then hit the "+" button below the blind fields, this adds the blinds/antes to the stacks.

Hi plexiq.
Is it OK to calculate unrestricted Nash for this hand for such a long time?

I was waiting for about 2 minutes, but only 1 iteration was finished.

Nope, not normal. Thanks for posting it.

It works fine if you initialize with linear Nash and then run unrestricted Fictitious Play from the toolbar (green button), which gives the same results.

With unrestricted initialization there is an issue with the hand though, will look into it.

^ Issue is fixed with today's update.

Although ICM is not as big as at the final table: Does it support ICM analysis when still 2-3 tables are running?
Im playing satellites a lot so I would like to use it for that.
So can a situation under flat structures (like 15-30 places paid with the same value) be analysed with it?

Thx

ICM calculations for multiple tables are not yet supported, no.

You can use an artificial structure to approximate the bubble factors though.

e.g.:
A satellite with 3 tables left with 8 players each and 15 places paid can be approximated by calculating your table with 5 places paid.

Thx, but how do I calculate this myself for other constellations / how did you calculate this?

Again, this is only an approximation:

Say you have 50 players total left on 5 tables. So each of the 10 players at your table calculation "represents" 5 in the original payout.

You approximate your structure by:
1st = Sum of places 1...5 in original payout
2nd = Sum of places 6...10 in original payout
3rd = Sum of places 11...15, etc

This should be reasonably accurate as long as chip distributions do not differ too much between the tables. (You will rarely have the exact chip counts of all tables available anyway so you will need to make some sort of approximation.)

A new Beta version is available now, a setup tutorial is available here:
http://www.holdemresources.net/h/products/hrc/beta-repository.html

Beta features:
*) 4/5/6-bet calculations
*) Option for flat calls

The weird thing in my opinion is when you start editing calling range by decreasing it. The worst profitable hands are thrown away but at the same the most profitabale are added (bu they were included in 3bet range).

Ah, i can see how that could be a problem when you are moving the slider back & forth a bit before you settle on a position. I will change that behaviour.

Unam also explained to me how the Equilab editing works after the coaching. So, as suggested in the coaching, i will add a ctrl selection option to allow the addition/removal of entire columns or rows. Should not take too long.

PS: When quick checking the replay of the coaching i did notice that audio+video are not synced up very well towards the end. That makes the plot explanations rather hard to follow because the mouse movement is not matched up with what i am talking about :/

Thanks.

More general game theory question and possible implementaion to HRC.
Current implementation restrict 3bet/4bet/... bet size to only two actions: all in - "allow shove" or fraction of pot size. Would be possible to find optimal re-raise size considering postflop play is checkdown as it is now? The next step would be to allow user change bet size in hand view and see how equity changes...

edit: it could exists multiple optimal solutions with different bet sizes?

edit: it could exists multiple optimal solutions with different bet sizes?

Imo not likely that there are several different single-betsizing solutions that result in exactly the same EV, no. But entirely possible that the optimal solution would consist of several sizings, if that option is allowed.

Automatic calculation of optimal sizings would be very hard i think. Allowing multiple sizings and/or letting the user change the sizing "in hand" should be doable though.

I have not decided yet what the next feature additions are going to be, but graphical replayer & ICM calculations for multiple tables are high on the list. Next round of updates probably won't contain any big changes to the game tree setups.

Originally posted by qlencjusz
The weird thing in my opinion is when you start editing calling range by decreasing it. The worst profitable hands are thrown away but at the same the most profitabale are added (bu they were included in 3bet range).

This should be improved/fixed in the latest version.

The new update also includes "Equilab style" range editing by using the CTRL key.

Originally posted by plexiq

Allowing multiple sizings and/or letting the user change the sizing "in hand" should be doable though.

Multiple bet sizing is what I would like to see in next release. Cheers

Hy, great piece of software indeed.
I'm going to buy it after the trial runs out but I do have a question.

I would much appreciate it if you could give me a detailed explenation of when to use the ICM and when the FGS model. I know what both of them mean. And I also know that FGS is reliable when the blinds are small or the bublle factor is big.

But i want to know how big and how small... Just give me some suggestions please. I'm playing 6 man SNGs.

Example let's say that there are 3 players and that all of them together have 30BB. I'm guessing ICM would be better in this situation?

Originally posted by prevolsek
Hy, great piece of software indeed.
I'm going to buy it after the trial runs out but I do have a question.

I would much appreciate it if you could give me a detailed explenation of when to use the ICM and when the FGS model. I know what both of them mean. And I also know that FGS is reliable when the blinds are big or the bublle factor is big.

But i want to know how big and how small... Just give me some suggestions please. I'm playing 6 man SNGs.

Example let's say that there are 3 players and that all of them together have 30BB. I'm guessing ICM would be better in this situation?

Basically, we would expect FGS to always give (slightly) better estimates than ICM.

However, for many situations the ICM and FGS advice will be close to identical. The difference between the two models becomes more relevant once the stacks are shallow and/or there is a big bubble factor. *If* there is a difference between the models, you can usually assume that FGS is (on average) closer to the real solution.

In your example with 10BB, there is very little difference between 3-round FGS and ICM if we have no bubble (winner-takes-all), the ranges are almost the same.

With the same stack setup but a high bubble factor of a 50:50:0 payout, there are some rather drastic differences between the models.

Regarding "how big or small", you can simply try to calculate varying spots with ICM and FGS to get an idea where the models start to differ. (This is really depending on the stack setups and bubble factor, so it is hard to make any general statements.)

Wow, thanks a lot for the ultra fast reply

When I wrote that the blind levels should be small for the FGS I meant that the effective stacks should be small. Sorry for that.

I'm very satisfied with your answer but could you please just comment on one specific situation that bothers me.

6 MAX SNG - Prize structer: 60:40:0
3 players

BU - 4000
SB - 4000
BB- 4000

I'm interested in the BUs pushing range in this spot. When calculated with the ICM the result is 18,9% and using the FGS we get 40.5%.

I think that the FGS gives us a much better result even though the ICM range is even more then half smaller. If we don't use this situation to push then the BB will probablly push, the BB will have to fold in most cases. The SB will take the chip lead and will be able to push a lot of hands in the next hand. HERO and the other opponent will have to fold in most cases. Even if the SB does not push in the first hand the BB will take the chip lead on the bubble...

So if we don't push more then what ICM suggests we give the SB or the BB the chance to dominate on the bubble and we loose a lot of EV this way, so 40% is better in this situation. Would you agree?

Thanks a lot for your answer and congratulations for creating such a usefull tool. I'm really happy that I found out about it now when I started learning how to play SNG properly and not later.