Number of players in hand after preflop? 3 Way Pot only, for example -is it possible?

Hello, is there any way to set the boundaries of the number of players in postflop?
Multiway is a tensile concept, it can be like 3 players in distribution and much more if you play fullring. Directly, as I understand it is impossible to set the range of player numbers, maybe it can be done somehow through Action Sequences? For example, I want the definition to admit a maximum of 4 players in postflop, and, let's say, for another definition, I want to limit only 3 players on the flop, I have any options or only default HU and MWP as options?

Ty.

Hello,

In Notecaddy it is either Heads up or Multiway at the moment. There is no further narrowing down avaliable.

Even HM2 has no way of filtering that narrow. The filters avaliable are for players dealt in hand, that is no use to this.

In HM3 I found a filter that can do this.

Filter editor - Action filters - Betting actions - Flop - Players on flop - Equal to 3

But usually all the default splits that HM3 does in situational views and reports is either HU or MW only. As it is for Notecaddy at the moment as well.


Best wishes,

jahrumble

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jahrumble

Hello,

In Notecaddy it is either Heads up or Multiway at the moment. There is no further narrowing down avaliable.

Even HM2 has no way of filtering that narrow. The filters avaliable are for players dealt in hand, that is no use to this.

---

Easily:

https://i.imgur.com/DpCpR2F.png


It is a pity that it's impossible in NC, in some situations, especially in Omaha, where multipotes are not rare the ability to limit the number of opponents in MWP (usually not more then 2 opponents will be usefull) would not be excess.

You found that one in HM2! I spent at least 10 mins. looking for it there.

I understand why you want to use it. I will suggest that addition to the devs to check how doable it is to add it since it opens a lot of doors and might use a lot of resources using definitions like those.

Using the Action Sequences as you suggested, with a lot of effort, might work only as a workaround. Preety much there would have to be a definition for every action of every player in a 3 way pot. Folds/calls/overcalls etc. The sheer amount of possibilities this opens is just about the number of definitions we would have to create for 3way only. In my opinion not doable unless you are building a coaching package.

Also, as far as reviewing your game you can certainly use the filtering options of HM we talked about to do it. And for live play, unless you play MW like 50% or more of 3 way pots compared to the rest of MW pots, the most important thing in a MW pot is still position and relative position to the PFR. That works with any number of opponents in MW pots 3 or 8. Plus the EV you have on the flop is always proportional to the amount of players in the hand. My point is you will not see any relevant differences in the game of a player if you look at the position and relative position in MW pots and compare it MW 3 way or 4way or more.

That said as I told you I will ask the devs. about this.

Cheers,

jahrumble

I am grateful to you that you are not lazy to give such a thorough and detailed answer.
Your arguments about EV are true, but many players have clear behavioral trends, and in these situations the statistics are extremely useful. A couple of examples: Some players adore steal the pot on flop in position when they have 2 opponents and both check, but never do it when opponents 3+. Other players, for example don't have such trend, and they love steal even when opponents are more. The same can be said about the trends of the preflop raser when he want to CB. The second example is donks. There are players who are quite free to donk weak hands in 3WP, but in 4WP+ then donk only power. Other donk lovers will be donk shit against any opponents amount. Perhaps modern Hold'em became too tightened for a good sample on such lines, but it cannot be said about Omaha, for example. That is why it is to be able to set the ranges of the number of opponents in the definitions a fairly useful thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jahrumble

That said as I told you I will ask the devs. about this.

---

Ty :)

Hi,

I have requested this to the developers.

There are plans to introduce that kind of filtering to HM3 already and I just added the request to have them for NC as well.

The HM3 request is already a work in progress. For the NC one I dont have a ETA a the moment.

Best wishes,

Ivo Rocha