[OFFICIAL Support Thread] HoldemResources Calculator

Support/feedback thread for the downloadable HoldemResources Calculator.

Features:

Offline push/fold Nash ICM calculations for Windows/Mac/Linux

Unrestricted range editing

Resteal / 3-bet calculations

Quick analysis of entire sessions

Convenient hand import from HEM1, HEM2, PT3 and PT4 databases

Advanced equity models (ICM, Weitzman, FGS)

Online sharing of calculations for friends or strategy boards

Requirements:

Operating system compatible with Java 6 (or higher) (http://www.java.com/en/download/manual.jsp)

1GB available RAM

200MB disk space

Guide and Download:

http://www.pokerstrategy.com/poker-tools/holdem-resources-calculator/

Screenshots:

(http://www.holdemresources.net/h/products/hrc/screens.html?source=pokerstrategy)http://www.holdemresources.net/h/products/hrc/screens.html

--

Important: please note that PokerStrategy.com does not take any responsibility for the software advertised in this thread.

We were not involved in the development and thus cannot guarantee the reliability or proper functionality of this software.

You use the software described in this thread at your own risk.

Wow!

Great news!

When I played SnGs I used to use the web-based one all the time.

So, the web-based calculator isn't available anymore?

Hey

Great news! I am using HoldemResources Calculator for a some time now (beta version), and can say its awsome softwear (i have SNGWiz, and its not close to HR Calculator).

I am definitely buying licence for next 18 months ($80), if there is anybody intrested for spliting the expences (licence is valid for 2 computers) let me know, im buying anyway. I FIND BUDY FOR SPLITING THE EXPENCES (EDIT) AFTER READING LICENCE (DIDNT DO THAT 1ST TIME), IM QUITING OF THIS, SORRY TO ALL PARTIES ABOUT THIS MISTAKE(2ND EDIT) It is still worth $80 investment.

Please give us notifying e-mails when you scheduel coaching session about how to use HR Calculator, im intrested if i can learn some more about this great softwear.

im interested...what are the advantages over sngwiz or icmizer? i am between those 3..also does it require an internet connection always? i will download it and maybe use the trial if it has one

Originally posted by kiromanAAKK

So, the web-based calculator isn't available anymore?

It is still available here:

http://www.holdemresources.net/h/web-calculators/nashicm.html

Looks a bit different, though works the same as far as I can tell

--VS

Originally posted by VBZg

I am definitely buying licence for next 18 months ($80), if there is anybody intrested for spliting the expences (licence is valid for 2 computers) let me know, im buying anyway.

Read the license carefully.

Although it may be valid for 2 computers, I'm pretty sure they must be owned by the same person.

Originally posted by VorpalF2F

Originally posted by VBZg

I am definitely buying licence for next 18 months ($80), if there is anybody intrested for spliting the expences (licence is valid for 2 computers) let me know, im buying anyway.

Read the license carefully.

Although it may be valid for 2 computers, I'm pretty sure they must be owned by the same person.

Thx for abservation, sorry for my mistake to PokerStrategy.com and HoldemResurces Team. Will keep licence entiraly for myself.

Sorry for the delayed replies, apparently i messed up with the email notifications.

Originally posted by z0fman

im interested...what are the advantages over sngwiz or icmizer? i am between those 3..also does it require an internet connection always? i will download it and maybe use the trial if it has one

It only requires an internet connection to connect to the license server every couple of days. The calculations all take place on your local computer though. There is a 14 day free trial available.

Regarding Wiz, there are mostly the well known Wiz issues:

*) Handles split pots inaccurately

*) Default ranges are quite poor

*) Range Editing is "Slider only", restricted by a Hand-Ranking

Icmizer is similar in some regards. However, it is somewhat limited because of it's online nature. HRC allows import from SQL databases, running automated calculations on entire sessions and deep FGS calculations. These features require a decent bit of RAM/CPU and are hard to do for an online based solution like Icmizer.

Although it may be valid for 2 computers, I'm pretty sure they must be owned by the same person.

Right. The license is for usage on up to 2 machines, but for the registered user only. (That part is actually bolded in the shop description.)

(Obviously, no problem VBZg.)

Is HRC for MTTs where more than 10 people get paid? Does it calculate chip-EV? Or provide any altenative method?

It currently supports only structures with up to 10 payouts.

But unless you enter stacks of all tables, there is little use for more than 10 payouts and you will typically want to use an approximate structure for these situations anyway. (Most people use winner-takes-all / chipev prior to the final table, but you can also use e.g. 80/20 etc to simulate a small bubble factor.)

As mentioned, you can calculate chipEV by selecting a "winner-takes-all" structure. At this time the EQDiffs are always displayed as %, not in actual chips. The ranges and results are 100% the same though.

This seems to be a frequent request from MTT players recently, i will try to get a Chip display added soon.

(Improved support for spots with multiple tables left is also planned, no ETA yet though.)

Hello

Is HRC compatible with Fifty50 payout structure?

Yes, you can simply use a 60/10/10/10/10 payout structure to calculate Fifty50ies.

Hey,

Installed the calculator but when I try to input my free trial license it seems like the dialog box with for the license key is not active - I cannot type in it - any Ideas?

Thank you in advance!

Do you mean the license key field after hitting the "Set License Key" button, or in the main Registration dialog?

(It is not editable in the main dialog to prevent accidental overrides/changes, please use "Set License Key" to enter/edit the key.)

Oh I see, It is fine then

Hi,

I think I found a bug in the calculator:

When I want to analyze a particular hand and copy it from HEM to the clipboard and then from the clipboard into the calculator If I was all in first in the hand, and I won it uncontested it coppies the stack sizes incorrectly - it shows them as if I have already won the hand.

What poker site is the HH from?

Please send the hand to support@holdemresources.net, or post here if you dont mind.

Thanks!

Hi,

The hand is from the Ongame network, I will post it as soon as I get home...

Ongame Network No Limit Hold'em Tournament - t75.00/t150.00 Blinds - 3 players - View hand 1979311 (http://www.handconverter.com/hands/1979311)

DeucesCracked Poker Videos (http://www.deucescracked.com/?referrer=converter_dc) Hand History Converter (http://www.handconverter.com/)

BB: t4600.00 30.67 BBs

Hero (BTN): t1730.00 11.53 BBs

SB: t1170.00 7.80 BBs

Pre Flop: (t225) Hero is BTN with 4 4

Hero raises to t1730, 2 folds

Here is a hand that shows this example - When I paste this hand in the calculator the stacks are:

1955 - BU

1095 - SB

4450 - BB

As mentioned, you can calculate chipEV by selecting a "winner-takes-all" structure. At this time the EQDiffs are always displayed as %, not in actual chips. The ranges and results are 100% the same though.

This seems to be a frequent request from MTT players recently, i will try to get a Chip display added soon.

(Improved support for spots with multiple tables left is also planned, no ETA yet though.)

What is a "winner takes all" structure? Do I select it in the program itself and how?

I hope you'll add the chip display soon, it should be quite easy to implement. Pretty please

@Gavron23:

I will need the original hand history text for checking what is wrong. (Or do you copy it to your clipboard with this format? You should use the HH text, instead of HMs intermediate format.)

@pepsico:

Simply input 100% for the first prize payout. A real ChipEV display is on top of my TODO list. Will most likely be ready sometime next week.

I cant find the old HH...

Ok here is another one:

** Hand History for Game 528342860346 ** (On Game)

Tourney Hand NL Texas Hold'em - Tuesday, October 30, 10:57:03 ET 2012

Table Table 1 283428603 (Real Money)

Seat 2 is the button

Seat 2: SamAxe ( $1645.00 USD )

Seat 3: nana dag ( $2700.00 USD )

Seat 6: acid1943 ( $3155.00 USD )

nana dag posts ante of [$40.00 USD].

acid1943 posts ante of [$40.00 USD].

SamAxe posts ante of [$40.00 USD].

nana dag posts small blind [$200.00 USD].

acid1943 posts big blind [$400.00 USD].

** Dealing down cards **

Dealt to SamAxe [ Kh 9d ]

SamAxe raises [$1605.00 USD]

nana dag folds

acid1943 folds

SamAxe wins $1120.00 USD from main pot

SamAxe wins $1205.00 USD

Is this in the needed format?

@pepsico:

Simply input 100% for the first prize payout. A real ChipEV display is on top of my TODO list. Will most likely be ready sometime next week.

Oh, sweet!

@Gavron23:

That format is considerably different from the latest histories i got from ongame. If you could send me an entire tournament HH file that would be great for debugging. (support@holdemresources.net)

Btw, when using HM1 you can load hands from any site directly into the HRC:

Right click a hand in HM and use "Mark Selected Hands"

In HRC, Import from SQL, Check Filter for Marked Hands

This works much more reliable, and you can import multiple hands at the same time.

Originally posted by plexiq

@Gavron23:

That format is considerably different from the latest histories i got from ongame. If you could send me an entire tournament HH file that would be great for debugging. (support@holdemresources.net)

Btw, when using HM1 you can load hands from any site directly into the HRC:

Right click a hand in HM and use "Mark Selected Hands"

In HRC, Import from SQL, Check Filter for Marked Hands

This works much more reliable, and you can import multiple hands at the same time.

Strange, this hand is from yesterday...

I will try to send a HH with relevant hands when I have the time....

Not sure how this works for other platforms, have you tried copy-pasting similar hands for the platform that you play on?

What exactly do you do to copy the hand from HM1 btw?

(I think the format you posted is actually some HM1-processed format and not the original one, may be easier to simply add additional support for that.)

Hi!

Seems like a very nice tool, probably gonna buy it after trial.

How can i use different equity models? Do you suggest using FSG always instead of ICM?

And are Nash ranges calculated based on ICM model or is there a Nash equilibrium based on FSG aswell (or i just misunderstand the concepts here)?

Hi,

you can select the equity model in the new hand wizard, below the structure/stacks form.

FGS shines if there are very short stacks and/or the bubble factor is very high. For other hands you may prefer to use ICM as a default, since it is faster (especially for full tables, short handed the difference is barely noticable).

The Nash ranges are calculated based on whatever equity model you choose in the hand setup. (The Quick Analyze feature always uses ICM to keep the calculations fast.)

And how can i change the import database once i've selected one (accidentally i chose the empty database)?

In the top application menu, go Window: Preferences: Tracker Database.

Then simply click the button next to "Database Name:", you get a Popup with your available databases.

Thanks for the quick replays!

One last thing: If i adjust/edit the default nash push range in a new hand, the other players calling range row doesnt change, it still shows the original default nash calling range. I can see the changed profitable calling range only on the table with green/red hands if i click on the calling range row. Do i miss something?

The Nash ranges are calculated when you first create the hand. They are meant to provide reasonable "default ranges", that you can modify based on your reads.

There is no automatic re-adjustment when you edit ranges, as this could be unwanted in many situations. This is the same way all other ICM tools on the market behave.

As you noticed, the profitability of other ranges changes immediately. But their defined strategy does not change.

If you want to re-adjust the other ranges, you can trigger this manually by using the green "Run Fictitious Play" button in the toolbar. This will re-adjust all non-locked ranges.

Great, thanks!

Love this tool already, seems like the good old Wiz has run its course, defo gonna use HRC instead

Hi!

There is one thing i miss from Wiz though - different graphs, esp the graph which shows how hero's calling range depends on op pushing range.

And there are slight discrepancies comparing the same hand in Wiz and in HRC.

In this hand for example:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, 15 Tournament, 200/400 Blinds 25 Ante (3 handed) - PokerStars (http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerstars.php) Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (http://www.flopturnriver.com/)

BB (t415)

Hero (Button) (t895)

SB (t12190)

BB is all in already and if i put SB* to call 100% in every situation, Wiz gives me that K2o push for example is -0.24, but HRC says its -0.14. Its a big difference.

Which one should i trust?

Regarding the range plot, this works already:

Select opponents range, right click, Plot: Range vs Best Response, select your range.

The solid line in the plot shows your most profitable range, depending on opponents range.

About your example:

This looks like a spot where wizards simplified split-pot handling causes inaccuracies. HRC results should be more accurate because splits are calculated correctly here, but I will check the results against other tools to confirm.

Sry,

EDIT my last post:

not BU to call in every situation, but SB obv

Yeah, i was assuming you meant SB

Hi,

i've tried to import some hands from HEM2, but there is some password that I have to apply. Couldn't understand that. Someone to help?

And also, I want to ask if the proggram is suitable for 6max SNG payout structure(70,30). Thanks!

Hi,

the password for the default installation of the PostgreSQL database is either "postgrespass" or "pgpass". (If these don't work, please check in your HM2 database manager. You should be able to see the password there.)

Program supports any structure with up to 10 payouts. So 70/30 works just fine, yes.

I tried to install it and I get:

I have latest java 6u37 instaled.

This error is typically caused when you are using a 32-bit Java installation with the 64-bit program download (or the other way around). Easiest way to resolve this to use the matching download.

(From your post it seems you downloaded the 32 bit version and have a 64 bit Java installed, so please try the 64 bit download.)

Originally posted by plexiq

This error is typically caused when you are using a 32-bit Java installation with the 64-bit program download (or the other way around). Easiest way to resolve this to use the matching download.

(From your post it seems you downloaded the 32 bit version and have a 64 bit Java installed, so please try the 64 bit download.)

I have Windows XP 32bit so no 64 bit program will run.

Ah, ok.

In your case, the "!" in the folder name appears to be causing the problem. (Details: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6166795/eclipse-crashes-at-startup-exit-code-13 )

Simply uninstall & reinstall in a folder without a "!".

Originally posted by plexiq

Ah, ok.

In your case, the "!" in the folder name appears to be causing the problem. (Details: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6166795/eclipse-crashes-at-startup-exit-code-13 )

Simply uninstall & reinstall in a folder without a "!".

♠_thumbsup: That's working

@pepsico:

Simply input 100% for the first prize payout. A real ChipEV display is on top of my TODO list. Will most likely be ready sometime next week.

Any news on the ChipEV feature?

Yeah, ChipEV is in preparation right now and should be ready sometime this week.

(This got pushed back a bit in favor of the parser bugfixes.)

Hi, plexiq. How your FGS works? Is it doing iterations until all possible nodes of tree will be calculated or just solve the game for one or two steps forward?

UPD:

If a second option is true, so what about the horizon effect?

FGS solves a configurable number of steps forward (maximum 5 atm), the leaf nodes are calculated using plain ICM. There are no adjustments made to reduce the horizon effect.

I do have an experimental implementation for the first option that currently works well for up to 4 players. (An adaptation of Ganzfried/Sandholms VI-FP.) I believe this algorithm is more promising than applying heuristics to FGS to reduce the horizon effect, so future efforts to improve equity evaluation in HRC will likely focus on this approach.

Some interesting reading about this topic:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sandholm/3-player%20jam-fold.AAMAS08.pdf

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sandholm/stochgames.ijcai09.pdf

Can you tell me if I can reliably use HRC with FTP Rush on demand tournaments? If so, how do I fill in the payout structure? Do I use chipEV before the final table (btw. thank you for adding that feature)?

When I import tournament history, I don't see all hands from that tournament. Last hands are from blinds 150/300 level, nothing more than that. What is that about?

Can you send me some of the historiy files to support@holdemresources.net please?

Most likely there are just some small differences for the Rush tournament histories that should be easy to fix.

(Not familiar with the exact structure, but using ChipEV / winnder-takes-all before the final table should be fine.)

Originally posted by plexiq

Can you send me some of the historiy files to support@holdemresources.net please?

Most likely there are just some small differences for the Rush tournament histories that should be easy to fix.

(Not familiar with the exact structure, but using ChipEV / winnder-takes-all before the final table should be fine.)

Wow, I didn't expect your reply so fast

Two history files sent. Maybe the problem is caused by antes that come into effect after 150/300.

Thank you for the other advice

Thanks for the HHs. You are right, looks like the ante is the problem. Should be fixed later today.

Originally posted by plexiq

Thanks for the HHs. You are right, looks like the ante is the problem. Should be fixed later today.

Thanks! Looking forward to the update.

Btw. which calculation should I use on the final table? Do i put win percentages to top 9 spots and use FGS or something? Any future video on using HRC would be appreciated

Fix is available on the update server.

For the final table you can use FGS or ICM and simply input the actual $-prizes or percentages, the program will take care of payout normalization anyway.

Regarding video: There are a few english HRC videos available on training sites already. PS also has a few other languages i think (German, French?, Russian?). I will likely do a coaching in english sometime soon, donno if a video will be available of that.

Originally posted by plexiq

Fix is available on the update server.

For the final table you can use FGS or ICM and simply input the actual $-prizes or percentages, the program will take care of payout normalization anyway.

Sweet! Works now

I remember SNGW had pre-defined payout structures which you could easily choose from or even save your custom ones. Could this be implemented?

Yeah, this is actually on the very top of my todo list. Will most likely ready within the next 2-3 days.

Originally posted by plexiq

Yeah, this is actually on the very top of my todo list. Will most likely ready within the next 2-3 days.

Awesome! HRC is getting better each day ♠_love:

I just had an idea: wouldn't it be great to get Strategy points for HRC subscriptions?

Might be the final push towards getting subsciption...

Nice piece of software!

It is so unusual these days to encounter something that seems to be good under the hood. A simple example: It interacts about a million times faster with my PT4 database than PT4 (,and probably many gazillions times faster than HM2 with its databases).

The user interface needs plenty of work though. An obvious missing, and easy thing to implement, is pre-configured payout structures, and/or possibilities to edit and save them. Modal dialog boxes (like "New Push/Fold hand") are a pain in any application. The "workflow" can be improved considerably. But these are minor complaints. The "game tree" is really smart.

I'll' certainly get a license. I don't like the subscription only idea though. I don't know really why, but the "keep charging my credit card 'til I die if I happen to forget" is nothing I like spontaneously.

/Johan =

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?

Spoiler ** History for hand T5-292760142-33 (TOURNAMENT: "Double or Nothing Turbo", S-5654-146061, buy-in: $11) **

Start hand: Thu Dec 06 00:12:48 GMT+06:00 2012

Table: Table #1 [292760142] (NO_LIMIT TEXAS_HOLDEM 300/600, ante: 60, Chips)

User: oneGoodDay

Button: seat 5

Players in round: 4 (6)

Seat 2: GeT_R1GhT (4600)

Seat 3: sthlgaridis (2120)

Seat 9: ShumPain (380)

Seat 10: oneGoodDay (1900)

ShumPain posts ante 60

oneGoodDay posts ante 60

GeT_R1GhT posts ante 60

sthlgaridis posts ante 60

ShumPain posts small blind (300)

oneGoodDay posts big blind (600)

Dealing pocket cards

Dealing to oneGoodDay: [9d, 7d]

GeT_R1GhT raises 1200 to 1200

sthlgaridis folds

ShumPain calls 20 [all in]

oneGoodDay folds

--- Dealing flop [Th, Qc, Qd]

--- Dealing turn [5d]

--- Dealing river [9c]

Summary:

Main pot: 1200 won by GeT_R1GhT (1200)

Side pot 1: 560 won by GeT_R1GhT (560)

Rake taken: $0

Seat 2: GeT_R1GhT (5700), net: +1100, [Jd, Ad] (PAIR QUEEN)

Seat 3: sthlgaridis (2060), net: -60

Seat 9: ShumPain (0), net: -380, [Ac, 2h] (PAIR QUEEN)

Seat 10: oneGoodDay (1240), net: -660

** End of hand T5-292760142-33 **

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.

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" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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

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

@zerazid:

Not exactly sure what you mean. Are you asked for payment details on Paypals page or still on FastSpring?

If on Paypal: You are probably looking at the options for users without a Paypal account, there should be a login-option for existing users somewhere on the page. You should not need to enter your details on the Paypal page.

On FastSpring: Afaik, all merchants are required to keep track of basic customer data for invoicing. I believe merchants can get the billing/invoice information directly from Paypal though, in that case customers don't need to enter the data separately. I am not exactly sure why FastSpring is not doing that, but i would suspect it is because they offer various payment options and prefer to use the same input forms for all of the options. I can forward the question to them if you are interested in a definite answer.

@Qubie:

Sorry for the late reply, i somehow missed your question.

The two most interesting plots are probably:

1. The "Best Response" plot can help you with problems like:

• How does your best response range change depending on an opponents range?

• With varying opponents range, what is the equity difference between your current range and your best response range?

• Against an opponent playing best response against you, what is the most profitable range for you to pick? (Note that the answer is frequently NOT the equilibrium range, unless we are in a ChipEV situation.)

2. The "Hand Equity" (currently in the Beta (http://www.holdemresources.net/h/products/hrc/beta-repository.html) version) plot shows you how the equity of individual hands changes depending on an opponents range.

This can be useful if you want to determine how loose/tight an opponents range needs to be, in order for your hand to be profitable.

Hi plexiq.

I analyzed this SB vs BB situation in tournament with payout structure of 73/17/10. Here is equlibrium solution for 3bet/4bet scenario with addtional openpush possible: hand1 (http://hands.holdemresources.net/?id=14scqgmkpzf6g)

SB EQdiff: +0.067%

BB EQdiff: +0.058%

then I restricted actions of BB by removing small 3bet allowing only him to openpush and again computed optimal solutions (fictious play):hand2 (http://hands.holdemresources.net/?id=daow6qljeeq3)

SB EQdiff: +0.041%

BB EQdiff: +0.068%

Surprisingly we see that BB can gain more by playing only 3bet push under condition that SB knows BB strategy, otherwise:hand3 (http://hands.holdemresources.net/?id=1oy1oh4h041ly)

SB EQdiff: +0.092%

BB EQdiff: +0.051%

BB will not profit more if SB does not adjust to BB strategy. Am I correct?

There is something funky going on with your ranges in hand1, this is very far from equilibrium. See how many red hands are in the SB opening range?

I think you probably changed some of the ranges after running FP, or maybe canceled the FP calculation?

Anyway, I get these (when locking SB open shoving to 0%):

http://hands.holdemresources.net/?id=1d7ov42w9eox

The BB 3-bet and especially 3-bet/call ranges are very different from your calculation.

Regarding your general point:

In equilibrium, BB can not change his strategy for profit. So if SB keeps playing equilibrium, BB can not gain by removing his small 3-bet range. (So hand3 BB EV can not be higher than in hand1, at least if hand1 would be in equilibrium. Which it isnt, for some reason - see above.)

Once you allow SB to re-adjust, it is possible that BB has higher equity. Even both SB and BB may end up with higher EV(!).

Originally posted by plexiq

@zerazid:

Not exactly sure what you mean. Are you asked for payment details on Paypals page or still on FastSpring?

If on Paypal: You are probably looking at the options for users without a Paypal account, there should be a login-option for existing users somewhere on the page. You should not need to enter your details on the Paypal page.

On FastSpring: Afaik, all merchants are required to keep track of basic customer data for invoicing. I believe merchants can get the billing/invoice information directly from Paypal though, in that case customers don't need to enter the data separately. I am not exactly sure why FastSpring is not doing that, but i would suspect it is because they offer various payment options and prefer to use the same input forms for all of the options. I can forward the question to them if you are interested in a definite answer.

Normally once I opt (check) the paypal option I should not fill in any payment details but instead i should be directed automatically to pay my paypal account for log in.

So yeah on Fastspring:

I believe merchants can get the billing/invoice information directly from Paypal though,

correct.

I can forward the question to them if you are interested in a definite answer.

Yes it would be nice if you could do that. I really appreciate that :).

I'll try to get an answer from FastSpring.

As your initial question was indicating some concern regarding data safety, i just want to reiterate the following:

I don't think it is any more/less secure for the user if the billing information is fetched directly from Paypal, compared to having customers enter it directly. Either way FastSpring will need to process basic customer information. Agreed that it is more convenient for customers to have the data automatically fetched though.

I know that HRC was designed mainly for tournaments but some cash games with shallow stack structure could benefit from it if there was an option of rake. I would like to see how rake have impact into preflop strategy. Could you consider to add 2 additional variables for winner takes all (chip EV) calculations: rake (% of pot deducted) and cap (max $ of pot deducted)?

Seconds thing are multiple bet sizings I requested some time ago. If you dont want add this feature to beta release could you provide version only for me?

It would be nice if you could add both feaures to HRC.

Raked calculations are a definite yes, these will be added for sure.

Regarding multiple sizings, how many are you looking to use?

Multiple sizings (especially when also used for 3-bet+ sizings) heavily affect the Fictitious Play calculation time and number of iterations needed until convergence.

I would like to have one additional bet size. It would be great if I could do some computations on my side with this feature. I could try it and see if I really need this and how does it impact calculation time.

Sure , I can get you an experimental version with a second raise size enabled. One additional open raising size should not impact performance too much.

Just send me a mail to helmuth@holdemresources.net, we can talk about the details there.

So i open a New/Basic Hand and edit the hand, get the ranges for push/fold ICM with unrestricted Nash, but when i change the ranges myself, nothing happens. For example, it say SB shoves 80% and BB calls 40%, but when i change SB shoves 0% or 100%, the BB calling range dosnt change. No positions for that matter, even if i change UTG shoving range to 100% or 0%, all the other positional % stay the same.

What am i doing wrong?

After you change the ranges you have to hit the little play button on the menu which will recalculate with the new ranges.

I noticed it just after i wrote that post. Opened a Collin Moshman video here and 10 sec into the video he changed ranges and pressed the button.

Ty anyways :). So fun to play around with this.

What limits and game do you play?

I am glad you worked it out. I am playing the 15 buck hyper turbo 6 max. I have a bit of work ahead of me to beat these stakes. Very aggro games! How about you?

Originally posted by Hashkan

So i open a New/Basic Hand and edit the hand, get the ranges for push/fold ICM with unrestricted Nash, but when i change the ranges myself, nothing happens.

What am i doing wrong?

Thanks @grogoes74 for answering. I just want to elaborate on the concept a bit, since this question comes up from time to time.

The ranges displayed in the text table and text-color coded (bold black vs grey) in the range chart are the defined ranges. These are used to calculate all the EVs in the hand for all the players. (You can think of these as "Let's assume player A plays range XYZ here,...".)

The defined ranges are initialized with a Nash approximation, so everyone should be close to their +EV ranges when you start the calculation. But you can set these range definitions to anything you like, they don't need to match with the +EV ranges at all.

If you manually change ranges, the displayed EVs for all ranges are automatically updated. (You will notice the coloring and EQDiff does change for everyone as soon as you update a range.) However, the defined ranges are NOT automatically updated. This is intentional, so you can freely define all the ranges for your calculation.

If you wish to include only +EV hands for a single range, you can use the "Select by Edge: 0" function in the range edit dialog. Or, as groges74 mentioned, you can re-adjust all unlocked ranges by using the green "Run Fictitious Play" button in the toolbar.

This topic is also covered in the product help at:

Help: Help Contents: HRC Help: Components: Range View

Ok ty.

What i do is copy the last hand history in the sitngo i am playing, paste it in the Basic hand to see the shoving ranges etc. But i can only do this for the last hand and not the current hand, since the hand history for the current hand has not been established and i dont have time IN GAME to put in the stack sizes etc. Do you have any recomendation how to put in the current hand ur playing in the fast nash calculator?

Example, blinds go up, 3 people left, i have button and get dealt 56s. I wanna see fast if its a profitable shove, how can i do it?

GL GL GL

No, HRC is mainly for post-session analysis. There is no direct support for in-game calculations because most sites do not allow live calculations of the current hand.

Some sites like Stars or FTP even disallow any ICM/Nash calculations while their client is open. Please carefully check the TOS of your poker site before using HRC during play.

Wow ok didnt know. But i tried it like once, and it wasnt even doable. So im gonna shut it down for now and study after the game.

Do u have any standard recomendation for how to study?

I wanna study the 6max hyper turbos on pokerstars. 65% 1st 35% 2nd

You can easily import entire sessions after playing and do a quick analysis of all the hands, then manually review the marked hands.

First import using the HH or SQL import, select all tournaments and use the "Quick Analysis" button in the toolbar. You can then sort by EQDiff, negative values indicate possible mistakes.

Then manually review the hands marked with the mistake/warning icon in detail.

Nice

Ok so im reviewing a session for tournament SNGs, press quick analyze, then sort by Diff%. What does the "X" hands mean and what does the "Check mark" mean? The -% and +% i understand.