GTO+/CardRunnersEV?
This is the support thread for CardRunnersEV, which is hand EV analysis software.
I am not able to filter for example for 3rd and 4th pairs on the turn or for lower pocketpairs below 3rd and 4th pair for example. I think I already asked you this after the custom filtering options got available and you said that it was in deed not possible. Is it possible now somehow or are you planning an update for this?
I think that we may be able to offer it as a custom option, but I'll have to check if I'm overlooking anything here.
Scy how are you?
Do you think that the sizings could be improved and separated to be able to order them from highest to lowest frequency / lowest to highest frequency, order the hands that have the most EV / EQ, etc.
That is, make these columns dynamic to order them.
I suppose that when we want to see "sizings" and order them, the columns should be by sizing and not by "percentage" as it is now.
probably with the present model it is unfeasible, but if you think there is some room for improvement in that sector, welcome!
https://gyazo.com/8559e9f36b4769fc89fc97...
Here an example of other soft
Scy how are you?
Do you think that the sizings could be improved and separated to be able to order them from highest to lowest frequency / lowest to highest frequency, order the hands that have the most EV / EQ, etc.
That is, make these columns dynamic to order them.
I suppose that when we want to see "sizings" and order them, the columns should be by sizing and not by "percentage" as it is now.
probably with the present model it is unfeasible, but if you think there is some room for improvement i
Ok, we will consider it for future releases.
When playing against a database solution, is there a way to select the boards you want without flop filters? Like a simple shift+click select? I am trying to quickly sort by bet size or check frequencies and then include all the boards that pass whatever threshold I want to use. Is there a way to do this now, and/or can it be considered for an addition?
I suppose that you could:
1) Go to database mode
2) Sort by Bet %
3) Right-click the trees that you want to disable
See the screenshot below.
That's what I have been doing and it is very tedious to click 100+ times. Any sort of shift-select + right-click would be super helpful.
The ability to do this would be tremendously appreciated still. There should be a better way to slice out specific boards you want to study (from the graph/db not just the filters).
The ability to do this would be tremendously appreciated still. There should be a better way to slice out specific boards you want to study (from the graph/db not just the filters).
Ok, I'll see if we can add a feature so that if you mouse over a tree while right-clicking, you can select multiple trees.
Hello, can you add more buckets of hands? such as A high, K high, runner fd and 3 card of straight, one over card. middle poket pair bigger than 3 card smaller than second card, trash- no backdoor fd and straight draw.
Hello, can you add more buckets of hands? such as A high, K high, runner fd and 3 card of straight, one over card. middle poket pair bigger than 3 card smaller than second card, trash- no backdoor fd and straight draw.
We could add some of these, although the bigger the list of stats is, the more difficult it will become to interpret.
It is not going to be harder to read. Please add :p
We could add some of these, although the bigger the list of stats is, the more difficult it will become to interpret.
It's actually the opposite for me, the more granularity the better.
There's always the option to hide custom stats right? So I don't see any problems in adding more hand categories.
You could also give us the option to hide/show any hand category and not just custom ones.
hello question please
I ran some sims at 0.5% dEV and used the full storage option
however it seems the turns are still quite suboptimal in terms of showing accurate ev in some spots
does full storage also store turn/riv data to the specified dEV? Or does it only store flop data and we are always required to manually run turns/rivers to see the most accurate ev even if we run the sim at lets say .01% dEV?
Thank you
It's actually the opposite for me, the more granularity the better.
Something like GTO Dojo implemented would be really great.
There's always the option to hide custom stats right? So I don't see any problems in adding more hand categories.
You could also give us the option to hide/show any hand category and not just custom ones.
Ok, we'll consider it for future releases.
hello question please
I ran some sims at 0.5% dEV and used the full storage option
however it seems the turns are still quite suboptimal in terms of showing accurate ev in some spots
does full storage also store turn/riv data to the specified dEV? Or does it only store flop data and we are always required to manually run turns/rivers to see the most accurate ev even if we run the sim at lets say .01% dEV?
Thank you
"Extensive" storage will store the data, as it is in the tree at the time the solver has completed.
Turn lines that are rarely reached will typically be less accurate than the one that are reached often.
You can use the "Resolve" icon to solve any turn/river line to a greater accuracy.
hi scylla, is there a way to make the solver so it doesn't automatically re-solve turns? My computer is slow so I run sims overnight, its inconvenient to have it resolve turns in my more complex trees.
Would it be possible to make things bigger here? letters, the numbers, especially the board.
Another thing I would like to ask is that it was possible to use a better resizing, because on my monitor I can't get the application very well fitted, it always cuts off the lower part of the program.
It would also be interesting to change the hand grid to one where the background is white with the hand abbreviations in black (greater possibility of customizing the colors of the actions).
Ok, I have checked, and the reason is that QhJh is 1/4th of the total possible number of QJs hands.
And KcJc is 1/3th of the total number of possible KJs hands.
When looking at it in the unnormalized pic below, it does make logical sense to me.
After normalizing, apparently 1/3th is the largest fraction in the matrix, which is normalized to 100%.
And 1/3th is stretched to 75%.
So there is a logic behind it.
The normalization is indeed just a feature to make the hands easier to see in the matrix.
Sorry for the late reply.. my brand new PC had a motherboard failure.. :'(
I now get why the frequencies are shown like this, but I don't think it's right.
If I select for only hearth combo's and the combo's I'm looking for are 100% there, it should be maxed out with no black visible if it's normalized. It should be 1/1, not 1/4.
For the non normalized viewing option the weights are off too. They should be equal if there are equal amount of combos. I can't see a reason why they shouldn't be.
Just to let you know, the software is awesome and I love it ♥
Would it be possible to make things bigger here? letters, the numbers, especially the board.
Another thing I would like to ask is that it was possible to use a better resizing, because on my monitor I can't get the application very well fitted, it always cuts off the lower part of the program.
It would also be interesting to change the hand grid to one where the background is white with the hand abbreviations in black (greater possibility of customizing the colors of the actions).
We can consider further customization of the display later in the year, however, for the short term our priorities lie elsewhere.
This also applies to customization of the grid.
As for the resizing request, have you tried the "Compact" display for the navigator?
It will free up a lot of space at the bottom of the interface.
See the screenshot below.
Sorry for the late reply.. my brand new PC had a motherboard failure.. :'(
I now get why the frequencies are shown like this, but I don't think it's right.
If I select for only hearth combo's and the combo's I'm looking for are 100% there, it should be maxed out with no black visible if it's normalized. It should be 1/1, not 1/4.
It's 1 combo out of 4, which would make it 25%.
For the non normalized viewing option the weights are off too. They should be equal if there are equal amount of combos. I can't see a reason why they shouldn't be.
Just to let you know, the software is awesome and I love it ♥
Most likely, the board contains either a K or J.
As a result, there's only 3 combos of KJs, meaning that KhJh will represent 33.3% of the available combos.
hello I have been encountering a very strange thing.
I am running bb vs sb sims to test the optimal ev of bb IP betsize after sb checks.
Taking a 963r flop Im looking at this EV number in the pic.
the tree, ranges, everything remains the same except for IP size and I only allow for one size and Im only looking directly at that pic's ev after clicking one time on sb node to reach the bb node to see the EV in that pic. I am making the assumption that the ev number shown in the pic simply gives the total and final EV of the BB after sb checks. I can't see what else it could be as I don't see anywhere else any EV number that would correspond to BB's final EV.
testing sizes I get the following
25 - 3.34 ev
50 - 3.54 ev
75 - 3.57 ev
Pot - 3.6 ev
150- 3.64 ev
200 - 3.61 ev
Now it seems a little strange to me that allowing for only one size that 150 is the most optimal but I figured it has to do with the fact if sb checks, their range is just so weak now that bb is allowed to bet really big, ok. But now Im beginning to think something else is entirely wrong because...
the most disturbing thing is that when I test for a split size of 2 sizes of 25 and 150 , the final EV is 3.49 as in the pic above.
this should be impossible because if allowing for only 150 the ev is 3.64 but allowing for 2 sizes (including the most optimal 150 size) the ev drops by 0.15
I have to be missing something or interpreting something very wrong. It is not possible for ev to drop 0.15 after giving bb more sizing options, the only thing that should happen is the ev stays the same or increases. Because if its true that 150 is the most optimal one size option (which now Im highly beginning to doubt) then giving the solver more options should never lower EV overall.
I do hope you understand my problem and thank you. Below I will print the screen w/the stupidly simple tree Ive been using to test bb IP flop stab sizes vs sb's check.
hello I have been encountering a very strange thing.
I am running bb vs sb sims to test the optimal ev of bb IP betsize after sb checks.
Taking a 963r flop Im looking at this EV number in the pic.
the tree, ranges, everything remains the same except for IP size and I only allow for one size and Im only looking directly at that pic's ev after clicking one time on sb node to reach the bb node to see the EV in that pic. I am making the assumption that the ev number shown in the pic simply giv
OOP will check with a different range for every situation.
Because of this, the EV for IP after OOP checks is actually not the correct value to look at.
To see IP's overall EV, go to the very first decision in the tree (for OOP), and mouse over his EV value.
A popup will display the overall EV for IP.
See the screenshot below.
oh thank you so much, this was really hurting my head
