Combination General Strength + Range

[FALOs]

I wonder why there is no way to combine this?




If we were not given the opportunity to somehow divide the 1 or 2 cards straights/flushes, e.t.c, then I hoped that it would be possible to at least combine Range + Strength to get rid of absolutely crap, like

Kd2s on desk 3h4h5h-6h-6x, 2 high flush on 1 pocked card, shity Full Houses like (65 on Desk 68A88) e.t.c. There is none of this, just as there is no way to separate the flush draw and the backdoor flush draw, although such hands are played in completely different ways. Why aren't there such important tools? Amazing.
This is probably why the majority went to H2N, because for many years the most important tools were absent from the arsenal of HM2 and related programs. In my case, I want to display a more or less accurate range. And I do not need one card shit in the statistics displayed on the opponent even if it's nominally called a straight or flush. I have no options, or am I missing something?

Ty.

[NotecaddyEdge]

I wonder why there is no way to combine this?

Hi FALOs,

What do you mean by 'no way to combine this'?

From how I understand it, you are combining them.. meaning from your screenshot the hand must be a straight AND have a minimum general strength of 90. Is it instead using OR instead of AND?

[FALOs]

Hi NotecaddyEdge.

From how I understand it, you are combining them.. meaning from your screenshot the hand must be a straight

On the screen - yes, but not in reality.
Must be a straight with Strength > 89.

That is, it should work like a logical "AND". And it works like a logical "OR", thus, preventing me from getting the correct sample.

Very simple logic - If a range is selected, and no Strength is selected, then only the range works, if only Strength is selected, then the Strength works, if both are selected, then this should work together.
But if the creator of the program did not want to do this, then at least it was possible to add filters for 1-2x card straights / flushes and more filters for full houses. Because, for example TJ and JAKKK, and JJ and JTT - both Fullhouse but two BIG difference!
I have always wondered how it was possible in a poker program that provides analysis of the actions of opponents for so many years not to implement enough filters for the most common poker combinations. I remember https://forums.holdemmanager.com/sho...d.php?t=526748 even 2 pairs were initially implemented without the ability to drop a hand like 32o and AAKKx desk because technically it is two pairs, so all this shit without equity ended up in "strong" ranges for a lot of players. ... Thank God later this feature was added. Straights, flushes and full houses were less fortunate.

[NotecaddyEdge]

Hi NotecaddyEdge.

From how I understand it, you are combining them.. meaning from your screenshot the hand must be a straight

On the screen - yes, but not in reality.
Must be a straight with Strength > 89.

That is, it should work like a logical "AND". And it works like a logical "OR", thus, preventing me from getting the correct sample.

Very simple logic - If a range is selected, and no Strength is selected, then only the range works, if only Strength is selected, then the Strength works, if both are selected, then this should work together.
But if the creator of the program did not want to do this, then at least it was possible to add filters for 1-2x card straights / flushes and more filters for full houses. Because, for example TJ and JAKKK, and JJ and JTT - both Fullhouse but two BIG difference!
I have always wondered how it was possible in a poker program that provides analysis of the actions of opponents for so many years not to implement enough filters for the most common poker combinations. I remember https://forums.holdemmanager.com/sho...d.php?t=526748 even 2 pairs were initially implemented without the ability to drop a hand like 32o and AAKKx desk because technically it is two pairs, so all this shit without equity ended up in "strong" ranges for a lot of players. ... Thank God later this feature was added. Straights, flushes and full houses were less fortunate.

Just to confirm, you are saying that it is working as 'OR' instead of 'AND' when using hand filters in combination with general strength, right?

If that is the case, I will try to replicate and create a ticket for the developers, because I think it should be using 'AND'.

[FALOs]

Just to confirm, you are saying that it is working as 'OR' instead of 'AND' when using hand filters in combination with general strength, right?

If that is the case, I will try to replicate and create a ticket for the developers, because I think it should be using 'AND'.

Yes, bro, you understood everything absolutely correctly. And you also think that it should be using "And"?

Yesterday, 6 years have passed since this post of mine, pay attention to point number 2:





Then I reminded him of this a year later:




Maybe you know the answer why sreticentv so stubbornly does not want to give us a tool for more accurate work with the opponent's ranges, and we are often forced to be content with the fact that only nominally, purely formally refers to this or that type of hands? Issue of the opponents ranges is not a priority for the program, which is designed to statistically analyze the opponents' play!! Maybe he'll at least listen to you?

[NotecaddyEdge]

Just to confirm, you are saying that it is working as 'OR' instead of 'AND' when using hand filters in combination with general strength, right?

If that is the case, I will try to replicate and create a ticket for the developers, because I think it should be using 'AND'.

Yes, bro, you understood everything absolutely correctly. And you also think that it should be using "And"?

Thanks for bringing this up, FALOs. I've written up a ticket to see if it can be fixed/changed to work like we expect it to.

[FALOs]

Thanks for bringing this up, FALOs. I've written up a ticket to see if it can be fixed/changed to work like we expect it to.

Ty, NotecaddyEdge.
It seems to me that sreticentv once said that a change in logic would affect the old definitions. In fact, this is not the case - those who needed General Strength did not use checkboxes in the Range sector, and vice versa, because they knew it didn't work together in fact, and those who did not know, initially mistakenly imagined the logic of their definition.

[NotecaddyEdge]

I think this is solved now in NC v2.9.81.0. Please let us know if you have any problems with it.

http://www.assaultware.com/notecaddy.2.9.81.0.zip