This needs to be implemented immediately.

[green_29]

Currently there is no way to separate 6max hands from full ring hands in Holdem Manager. I made a thread about this before and was told that if you set the filter to "less than 7 players for 6max" and "more that 6 players" for full ring then this would be close enough. I always believed that and therefore had no problem.

But today I found that around 10% of my hands at full ring are actually played with less than 6 players at the tables. This will be a lot higher for others since people start tables and I don't.

So this means that if I set my filter to "more than 6 players" the I am going to miss about 10% of my hands. But if I filter it to "more than 5 players" then it is going to involve tens of thousands of unwanted 6max hands.

This is a big problem, 10% of hands is quite a lot to miss. I want to be able to separate 6max hands from full ring hands for obvious reasons, this is not just a usual "suggestion" (which is why I didn't post it in the suggestions thread), its actually really important for anyone playing seriously.

Not only that but surely it would be really easy to put this into the Holdem Manager software since most sites write in the hand history whether the table is 6max or full ring?

[Patvs]

The GREAT thing about HoldemManager is... if you play a hand at a full ring table:
-with only 6 players (due to players leaving/sitting out)
-with only 2 players (because you're starting up the table)
--> HoldemManager will NOT categorize that hand as a full ring hand.


If you to to Cash Game--> Reports--> WINNINGS SUMMARY
You can see which hands are categorized as 6max (although some of them, and in my case ALL of them since I don't play 6max, are actually played at a full ring table)


Now, if you go to hud options--> additional HUD filters--> you can setup a #players filter. With this filter. It won't use the <6 #players hands, if you're playing full ring. And it won't use the >7 #players hands, when you're playing 6max.

---


I don't fully understand your post.
On the one hand you don't want to lose the 10% of your hands.
On the other hand, you don't want it to include x thousands of unwanted 6max hands when you're playing full ring.

Why would you want your opponents full ring stats to include hands, you played with only 6 players dealt in? What makes that hand so much different than a actual 6max hand?

This is exactly what HoldemManager accomplishes with the #players filter. Since you can setup something like:





(strict separation between HU, 6max, FR hands)


but also, something like this:



(overlapping #players, where a 7 handed hand WILL show up in the 6max stats)

[The Minder]

Patvs. This is a discussion that has been held on this forum many times and there seams to be two points of view.

The first viewpoint, from HM associated people, is that a players playing style is based on the number of players at a table. That they automatically adjust from FR to 6-max dependant on bums on seat (and not sitting out). Hence the filters you mention are probably a viable method of categorizing data.

The second viewpoint is that a players style determines what table they will sit at. If a player enjoys FR then they will sit at a FR and play FR style. Same same for 6-max. In this case, a player may not be likely to change his/her style just because a couple of players sit out or leave the table.

With the emphasis these days on multi-tabling where scant seconds of attention are applied to a single table, it is Hero's underlying philosophy that will shine through (he will revert to form) and he will play the table based on what it is (FR or 6-max), not bums on seats.

In this case, HM is constrained.

My comments only apply to cash games. HM is even more constrained in segregating 6-max/FR tourney data.

[green_29]

Patvs. This is a discussion that has been held on this forum many times and there seams to be two points of view.

The first viewpoint, from HM associated people, is that a players playing style is based on the number of players at a table. That they automatically adjust from FR to 6-max dependant on bums on seat (and not sitting out). Hence the filters you mention are probably a viable method of categorizing data.

The second viewpoint is that a players style determines what table they will sit at. If a player enjoys FR then they will sit at a FR and play FR style. Same same for 6-max. In this case, a player may not be likely to change his/her style just because a couple of players sit out or leave the table.

With the emphasis these days on multi-tabling where scant seconds of attention are applied to a single table, it is Hero's underlying philosophy that will shine through (he will revert to form) and he will play the table based on what it is (FR or 6-max), not bums on seats.

In this case, HM is constrained.

My comments only apply to cash games. HM is even more constrained in segregating 6-max/FR tourney data.

Exactly.

Full ring is full of mass tablers and they dont play too differently if there are only 6 players at the tables. Possibly with 5, but DEFINITELY not with 6.

A full ring table with 6 players is not a 6max table, its a full ring table with 6 player, there is a massive difference. A - some people dont adjust (mass tablers definitely dont), B - people who play full ring are tighter than 6max players overall, even if they do adjust when the table gets 6 handed.

All of this Ive spoke about is when there are empty seats, if it doesnt count when there are people sitting out then this is a massive problem as I am 100% sure that most people dont really adjust just because some people are sitting out. I myself dont adjust that, and Im a way above average player.

This really needs to be changed, I cant see any argument for the current system that make any sense whatsoever.

[green_29]

A poll or something should be done on this. Im telling you 99% of players would vote for what I suggested. As Ive said most people dont adjust when there are sitouts.

[Patvs]

The current system is done precisely because of what you describe.
If you startup a fullring table and are playing headsup for a couple of hands... those headsup hands will NOT be included in your opponents full ring stats if you use the #players filter.

Just use two databases. One to which you import your Full Ring hands, and one for 6max.

[green_29]

The current system is done precisely because of what you describe.
If you startup a fullring table and are playing headsup for a couple of hands... those headsup hands will NOT be included in your opponents full ring stats if you use the #players filter.

Just use two databases. One to which you import your Full Ring hands, and one for 6max.

I know about the stats filters, the problem is with separating in hem. How am I supposed to separate my 6max hands when they are all now in the same database and this program cannot separate hands based on what type of table you are sat at.

Like I said do a poll, I promise you everyone will vote for how I want it.

[The Minder]

... Just use two databases. One to which you import your Full Ring hands, and one for 6max.

You are joking, right? Under this philosophy we would need at least 3 dbs. One for FR, one for 6-max and one for all data so that any of the summary reports/graphs in HM would actually make sense. And how do you propose tourney players segregate their data?

I was always under the impression that relational databases were supposed to be a central repository for all data which was then filtered to present the user with meaningful results. Not the other way around.

[Ajax]

The current system is done precisely because of what you describe.
If you startup a fullring table and are playing headsup for a couple of hands... those headsup hands will NOT be included in your opponents full ring stats if you use the #players filter.

Yes, the current system does prevent the headsup hands from mixing in with your HUD stats when you start up a new full ring table, and that is good. Note that it happens only when you set the "Additional HUD Filters" to do that, and that is good as well. But even though that's all good, it is still not good enough.

The database needs to have a field that indicates if the table was HU, 6max, or FR (possibly even HU, 3max, 4max, ..., 10max, if that is what would be needed to support everyone).

Let's say that all you need to support everyone is to have HU, 6max, and FR. You add that filed to the database, and then you add a filter with two checkboxes for each table type, like this:
HU......[ ]Include 6max...[ ]Include FR
6max...[ ]Include HU......[ ]Include FR
FR.......[ ]Include HU......[ ]Include 6max

The way the current application works, it is as if all the boxes are checked, like this:
HU......[x]Include 6max...[x]Include FR
6max...[x]Include HU......[x]Include FR
FR.......[x]Include HU......[x]Include 6max

If the user wants the system to still behave the way it does right now, then the user can just check all of the boxes.

Everything that is in HUD Options > Additional HUD Filters you would still keep. The six checkboxes would just be added. And they would be added to the reports as well.

[Ajax]

Right now, the database has one field, something like:
occupied_seats_at_table

But, it needs to have two fields, something like:
occupied_seats_at_table
total_seats_at_table

Then, you can start building in all the functionality around it.