Software review- Acespade vs. Wilson Hold'Em- Overview section
Easy E
> would be worth the investment, even though I already owned Turbo
> HE… and then I decided that the comparison might be of some use
> to the RGP community. You’ll have to decide whether that is
> true or not…
>
> Since I already owned the Wilson product, I reviewed it initially
> before loading and using the Acespade product. I tried to approach
> the software as if I hadn’t used it before. Hopefully this
> approach will reduce any bias or conditioning I may have as an
> existing user of Turbo Texas Hold’em.
> Due to the final length of this evaluation, I am breaking it into
What's with all of the numbers? Is punctuation not coming through?
About 3 years ago i jumped on someone who was spamming 2+2
incessantly with claims about this product, how it was so much better
than Wilson Software, better graphics, yadayada. I kept trying to get
specifics but never did.
So, since at the time Wilson didn't have 7stud8, and Acespade did, I
was thinking about buying that product myself and seeing whether the
claims were true... until a review of Acespade's product, by Izmet
Fekali, scared me off. Here's a link to that review:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Acespade+group:rec.gambling.poker&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&selm=GvdI3.408%244j1.70592%40news.siol.net&rnum=2
Sounds as if Acespade added some functionality since then, but
doesn't look as if it's good enough.
There are no comments on advice from either game- what did you
think about it?
SGarcia
post. In addition, both the Advice and Evaluation sections were
supposed to be under this one. I'll try to link the Evaluation here
also. Sorry for the confusion.
(original document reposted)
The following document contains my in-depth review of both the
Wilson Software and Acespade Software releases of Texas Hold Em that
are currently available. This comparison was prompted initially by
my questions about the accuracy of the advice given by the Wilson
software concerning play strategies in certain scenarios. I was also
curious about the validity of claims made on the Acespade web site as
to the superiority of their product when compared to Wilson Software.
I finally decided that an analysis of the Pro 2002 Hold Em
product would be worth the investment, even though I already owned
Turbo HE… and then I decided that the comparison might be of some use
to the RGP community. You'll have to decide whether that is true or
not…
Since I already owned the Wilson product, I reviewed it initially
before loading and using the Acespade product. I tried to approach
will reduce any bias or conditioning I may have as an existing user of
Due to the final length of this evaluation, I am breaking it into
three separate postings- Overview, Advice and Evaluation. The latter
includes a short winner/loser comparison of various areas in a
separate attachment, which I put together after evaluating each
product individually.
This review is based on my current ownership and use of the two
software products, with some additional information gleaned from my
Turbo Omaha/8 product from Wilson Software. My review of each game's
functionality is as in-depth as I thought necessary to fully introduce
the products to those who don't own them. I hope that all of this
information allows you to make a safer decision concerning what
software you would like to invest in, regardless of what my
conclusions end up being.
Configuration Notes: Dell Dimension PC with Win98 Second Edition
installed. 64 MG RAM, Pentium II processor
WILSON TURBO HOLD EM 4.0
DELIVERY
- Quick. White CD envelope, User Guide for new product, (not
lower-priced upgrades), install troubleshooting and new feature
overview sheet
INSTALLATION
- Very simple and easy, a few mouse clicks and minor entries. More
flexibility in allowing where Start shortcuts are placed would be
nice. This might be an InstallShield limitation.
- There is an option during the InstallShield process that allows you
to load the demos of the other programs that Wilson offers.
INITIAL PRESENTATION
- Software flashes pictures of various card casinos, unless you turn
it off in the Problems area.
- Upon opening, the plain green table felt is displayed in the window,
with the pop-up Tips window. After closing, the versioning
information is displayed by itself on the felt
- No Start Game button exists, but Hold Em menu choice at the top
right is intuitive enough.
INITIAL CONFIGURATION
- There are several areas for configuration:
- Initial shortcuts- Problems launcher. Allows some one-button
changes for display problems and startup preferences
- Pre-game menu selections- Various configurations for how the rake
is handled (percentage max and amounts down to $0.25 increments); how
existing player Profiles will adjust their game(s)- their Toughness,
as it were; settings for Hold Em rules and variations (max $200/400
fixed bet, $2-10 spread limit, also allows 1-4-8-8 and other
by-the-street bet configuration, among other settings); speed of play;
sound/animation options; number of hands dealt per hour, etc.
- Also has a number of settings for analysis variations (no bet/no
fold hand comparisons; simulated high-speed, high volume "intelligent"
play evaluation; player/position locks; repeatable scenario plays;
etc.)
- There are methods to create and use custom players or lineups
- User can also make adjustments to settings in order to influence the
recommendations of the Advisor Profiles (of which there are several,
mainly dependent on the number of players in the game at the start)
about raising vs. calling, multiple recommendations and choosing an
Advisor from available Profiles
During hands, many configuration choices are still available.
This becomes especially useful with the instant Replay option, to
allow you to analyze the play decisions that you make under different
game structures.
There is a high level of flexibility in the system, allowing
beginning users to enable a large number of tools for help, while
experienced players can focus on specialized areas or in-depth
analysis
ACTUAL PLAY
Just after you trigger a new game, a window always appears,
allowing you to reconfigure:
- Types of hands dealt (All, Only calling, Only raising)…. Latter two
skip hands that don't match bet/cost criteria based on Advisor's
advice, I assume.
- The amount of raising and check-raising
There are also new buttons in this window, with the 4.0 release-
shortcuts to Advisor settings and various Toughness screens, for
last-minute changes…. or if you missed configuring them originally.
IN-PLAY FEATURES
Graphics
- Standard table has a rectangle-shaped display format, with 5 hands
in a row at top and bottom.
- User can configure whether some details are presented or hidden for
each player.
- Graphics are clean, simple, uncluttered. If software is configured
to display it, player names, seat and table amounts are displayed in
yellow text.
- Your cards are easy to see and read, as they are pretty large, as is
the board when it is dealt. Actions for each player are distinct and
easy to follow.
- The Deck button also allows user to flip between red or blue-backed,
herringbone pattern cards.
** Omaha/8 has a second table layout choice, supposedly mimics
Internet play table views. Entire rounded table is seen, along with
chip racks. When my eyesight isn't bad, I like the view. My one main
gripe with this feature in Omaha/8 was that it was harder initially to
differentiate the action from the cards for each player- I have to
look more carefully to see what happened. This was due to smaller
lettering and yellow-colored text that didn't stand out as well for
certain details. Once I got used to the change, it wasn't a big
problem.
You can switch back and forth by configuring this view in
Problems prior to opening the game. I'd assume that this addition is
appearing in release 5.0 of Hold'em.
I generally turn off the sound and animation options. The chips
in the pot sounds startled me when I first heard them… and I don't
need to hear a COMPUTER tell me "Bad beat!" At certain fast playing
speeds (configurable delay between each computer player's action),
many of these settings are overridden in favor of card speed anyway.
The ring game play mimics b&w play well, given that the graphics are
not three-dimensional and you don't see any physical players. A white
Dealer button sits on part of the current button's cards. It remains
in place, clearly visible, even if the button player folds.
A small red arrow sitting just above the player's left-hand
card's corner indicates current action. Action taken by each player
displays in yellow text above the cards; their name is displayed below
the cards (if configured to), also in yellow text. Their accumulated
profit/loss status, updated instantly, is displayed in red on a yellow
bar that is hiding the bottom edge of the cards (this also can be
removed). Players that fold disappear from the screen completely.
When the action gets to your player, and the game is fixed limit,
the Call and Raise amounts are displayed in white under your cards.
It's easy to ignore this as unnecessary. When a spread limit game is
running, this does not get displayed, as the amount isn't set.
One problem- If you Hit the Bet (for spread limit) or Raise
(spread or fixed limit games) button, and then want to change your
mind, you cannot. There is no way to cancel the action, you can only
limit the amount if allowed.
IN-PLAY OPTIONS:
Besides betting/folding options, the following are available
during the hand:
ZIP- allows you to fold out of turn and zip the hand to the
conclusion. Hand is played the same way as if you folded in turn.
Nice feature if you're being lazy and not analyzing others' play… or
in a Challenge… or if you're tired and want to move the unplayable
hands along faster. Now, if only this option was available to me in
the cardroom…
ODDS- new for version 4.0, I believe. Selecting this button either
shows the odds of your hand's improvement on the flop, when you
reference the screen pre-flop… or it displays the odds of your hand
improving by the turn and river (post-flop). On the turn, it only
displays the current pot odds and your current hand. Each stage
before the river also shows current pot odds.
STATS/RAKE- This button leads to a dozen evaluation areas, which
contain a number of choices on charts or graphs that illustrate
various aspects of your play. Most of these tools can be configured
on the fly to show a large variety of information, as well as show
that information in different formats (bar charts, pie charts, grids)
Some of the included tools that I find very useful:
a) An overall play evaluation against the Advisor's recommendations
(rankings based on the percentage you were off from that advice in 4
areas),
b) A cash results record of various starting hands you've repeatedly
held, with details on how much you've invested and profited with that
specific hand,;
c) The Rake/Toke analysis, which is an illuminating tool for examining
the effects of rake structures and tipping procedures
d) A record of hands held, by seat, by street, by type as you choose.
e) The number of whole and split pots won (which I would assume would
be VERY helpful for a high-low player)
You can also view Winning/Losing streaks,
tightness/aggressiveness tracking, bad-beat jackpot frequency (a
raking option can be set for this)… most by player, by street as you
choose.
The graphics on some of these charts is very nice, whether a
choice of pie chart or bar chart, or 3-D view, or other options.
One other playing option that can be used throughout the play of
the hand, rather than just at the end: a mouse Peek option, which can
reveal one hand at a time (including your own, if you hid it). This
option can also show folded hands that aren't currently visible.
POST-PLAY OPTIONS
The two main options that are available after a hand has
completed play:
REPLAY- This feature allows you to instantly replay the hand that you
just played, without affecting the ongoing statistical tracking of
your play. You can try different tactics in the same scenario to
examine best practices directly. You can even change most of the
various game settings before you replay the hand, including ante, rake
and bet structure, and player toughness.
This feature proves very useful in instantly trying out
different strategies for a particular circumstance… or if you want to
investigate how pot odds could alter the Advisor's recommendations.
LOOK- available at hand's end, shows all hands originally dealt,
including folded hands.
When quitting a game, as opposed to closing the software, you can
save that game for future use. This is handled in a simple,
efficient manner.
HELP
- In the Start Menu shortcut, there is a Readme doc that contains
general summaries of functionality, how Profiles (player types) are
designed on a high level, review of included Lineups (player table
makeup), general concepts of poker, etc.
- Some of this information seems more in-depth, or isn't even found,
in the online Help opened from within the game. I'm not sure why this
separation was chosen, as most players are not going to go into this
document
- Tips- initially a Tips window pops up with a "tip of the day"
window. This can be turned off, or reopened from within the game at
any time. The Tips are summaries of steps required to implement or
execute certain functions within the game… serve as quick reminders,
in a sense
- Help- This standard Windows on-line help has information on various
game-required topics. More in-depth that Tips, but not overwhelmingly
so. Has standard Windows help Search functions (Find, Index,
Contents) and format.
- Organization of help documents is okay, though I've seen better
on-line help systems. A little experience made it fairly easy to
navigate through the Contents window and links, and they were
organized in a fairly logical manner. The Index tab allows for type
searching for topic headers.
- Overall, fairly easy to use and find what I wanted by matching
titles to headers. Some of the links could have been eliminated, just
by listing the brief descriptions on the same page as the original
link.
- There is some discussion of the functionality involved in the
settings. More in-depth information on configuration hints, or
examples of settings' effects on play, would have been helpful.
- No F1 links are available that I could find, from game table or
Report windows.
CHALLENGE- A one-to-one challenge between you and the default
Advisor. You each play 50, 100 or 200 hands against the current
table settings that you have in place, whether a full table or less.
The exact same hands are dealt to both of you (the Advisor plays all
of the hands first, out of view), so that you can compare cash results
based on the same cards.
Advice, mouse peeking and other related items are not available,
forcing you to play the hands based on your own knowledge. Only the
betting and Zip/Quit options are available until the hand is over.
There is also the option to see the standard Statistical Data charts,
which analyze your play in various ways against the Advisor's
recommended plays, during the Challenge. Unfortunately, this is not
available after the Challenge is over, which is a mistake in my
opinion.
** Note that the latest Omaha/8 Wilson product has removed the
available statistics and replaced them only with a simple indicator of
your cash status at the time that you check it. Hopefully version
5.0 of Hold ‘Em will not duplicate this change in functionality.
However, I hope 5.0 WILL include the Challenge history feature
that I see in Omaha/8. This feature is an ongoing win/loss/profit
total of your own play and the Advisor's that is retained for as long
as you'd like.
My experience has been that I match up pretty evenly in the
Challenge. My swings tend to be smaller- I lose less and win less
than the Advisor when it plays- and while I question some of the hands
the Advisor plays, I'm sure he'd question mine if he could.
This feature is very playable. I use it a lot and enjoy trying
to catch up when the Advisor builds a lead. This feature also gives
you another tool to analyze your play- if the supposed ‘expert' has
results different from yours, you can then use the charts and other
tools (including Repeatable deals) to examine where you may differ or
other ways to play the hands that you encountered.
CONFIGURING PLAYERS
The system has a checkbox format for configuring existing
players, called Profiles. Using simple clicks and edits, you can
configure how the player will: play each type of hand combination,
preflop; react to various pot statuses, such as re-raised pots, based
on table position, your hand and how it fits with the board at each
stage (pre-flop, flop, turn, river); and how to play the hand based on
the various board card situations.
You can also add an alternate play for each selection with a
percentage adjustment, but only for before-the-flop play. I'm not
sure why this alternate option wasn't included for post-flop choices.
Maybe it would be too daunting a task for anyone but the most
knowledgeable player to configure these settings with any degree of
competence?… or maybe it would affect software performance too much.
You can adjust or replace the settings for all of the Advisor
Profiles, as well as create your own custom Profiles (there is room
for about 40 additional Profiles, if needed).
In fact, there are so many choices that I think it would be
daunting for a beginning player to accurately create or extensively
alter a Profile in ways that make playing sense. For example, the
settings for how to play with one pair on board allow you to
individually configure actions in 35 board-fit scenarios, for
early/middle/late positions during the flop, turn and river.
Certainly, when first presented with the plethora of data, beginning
users may feel intimidated in my opinion.
(Maybe those users who have the software currently can comment
on that…)
While the process itself is not that complicated and can be
grasped quickly, I believe that this tool is primarily for
experienced/advanced players. Knowledgeable players will have a
better understanding of the game and the combination of factors that
are involved in accurately configuring valid reactions for a certain
type of player. Those types of users, who have the experience and
the drive to fully define the criteria that they are looking for
within a Profile, should find that the depth of coverage is more than
enough to achieve their ends in simulations and research.
(Again, for experienced users who have extensive experience with
this feature, maybe you can share your opinions on the ease of use and
accurate complexity of the Profiles)
Fortunately, for beginning users, an in-depth review or editing
requirement is not necessary to utilize Turbo Holdem's flexibility.
There are 45 pre-defined Profiles, with a descriptive phrase and
categorization of their play type, which should give most users more
than enough playing flexibility, especially when combined with
Lineups.
CONFIGURING LINEUPS
This is much simpler to accomplish. Users can load any of the
existing 22 Lineups, edit them, or create your own. You can set the
starting positions of the players by seat number in a simple
drag-and-drop manner. The only thing missing is a simple way to
delete a lineup- you must navigate outside of the game to the folder
where the offending Lineup is saved.
With Lineups, you can configure different player combinations and use
them as you'd like, whether in live play or for testing purposes.
You can add the pre-existing Profiles or custom Profiles that you
create.
TESTING TOOLS
One of the standout features of Wilson Software's Turbo products,
in my mind, is the various high-volume, high speed testing tools that
you can utilize:
Automatic Test Capability- You can define, save and run up to 50
tests automatically, in order, utilizing various data sources:
- Saved Lineups, with various player mixes;
- Manually assigned player hands and flops (Stacking the Deck); and/or
- A specific run of random dealt hands that you played and captured
previously (of any length as to number of hands dealt), known as
Repeatable Deals.
Once all of the tests run, all of the related statistics can be
displayed and analyzed as you choose.
One important note about Stack the Deck. This tool has a lot of
flexibility in and of itself. You can:
- Assign all cards to all players and the flop
- Assign some cards to some of the players and/or some of the flop.
The system fills in the blanks with random cards, changing randomly on
EACH deal, for as long as you leave the deck stacked.
- Easily re-assign or remove cards, allowing quick changes that can be
quickly analyzed.
With this feature, you can lock in as much or as little of a
situation as you choose, then continue to play and replay that same
situation with button changes and action changes without EVER changing
the locked in cards. Combined with Repeatable Deals, this is a great
tool that you can use for high-speed testing. You can easily turn it
off by unstacking the deck at any time.
Showdown Holdem- a no fold/no bet simulation that continuously runs
hands, using the number of players currently set for the game, for
analysis. You can pause the simulation at any time, view data through
some of the standard Stats/Rake charts, and then continue or end the
simulation. This moves VERY quickly- on the level of 5 million hands
an HOUR according to the posted stats (and also my manual estimates)
This feature sounds somewhat similar to what I've read about
Mike Caro's Poker Probe software, not that I have ever seen it.
Neither tool above displays the actual play of the hands on
screen, hand by hand. That isn't the purpose, evidently.
In different ways, both of these tools give the user powerful
methods for quickly analyzing different scenarios, with enough
repetitions to approach statistical significance, without having to
tie up you computer for days on end. You can easily change criteria
and rerun the tests, thereby quickly and thoroughly investigating
different possible options.
Acespade Pro 2002 Hold Em
DELIVERY- Quick. CD came in clamshell box, similar to the ones
that the old Turbo deliveries used to come in, years ago. Also
included were 2 marketing flyers (one outside, one inside the box… in
case I missed the first one??). These flyers gave bullet point
overviews of the features, minor installation instructions and other
marketing/sales lists of Acespade products.
Bonus- My delivery contained a logo'd hat. I don't know why.
Decent hat, though.
INSTALLATION- Just as simple as Wilson. AutoRun is not enabled for
the software, but no big deal. Surprisingly, no license agreement
check-off is required. I was expecting one after the "help us
prosecute copyright thieves" plea in the flyer.
- Same problem with lack of flexibility in placing Start icons… this
must be an InstallShield limitation.
- Unlike Wilson products, you can uninstall Acespade's game through
the Add/Remove Programs process.
** One installation note for Turbo owners- After I installed Acespade
Pro2002 initially, I could no longer launch my Turbo Hold ‘em 4.0
software- I generated application errors, indicating an invalid
pointer. Turbo Omaha/8 still worked without issue. When I
uninstalled Acespade and reinstalled first Wilson, then Acespade, I
didn't run into the problem again… and I tried several Acespade
installs after that without recreating the problem. Therefore, it may
have just been coincidence.
INITIAL PRESENTATION:
The game opens up to an initial view of the main game table.
Initially, there is a pop-up disclaimer about computer advice not
being 100% accurate, since it's not just mathematics, and to use at
your discretion. The game then presents its default opening view:
- There are 10 pink boxes representing player statistics on the table.
The whole view is a very boxy rectangle with 5 players in a row at
the top, 5 at the bottom.
- A complete card deck, spread upright by suit as in a casino
blackjack table, is also displayed
- A series of blue bars, one per player, which say "Cur Bet
AllBet" on each, run through the middle of each table half
- In the center of the green table are the following:
- On the left, a gray box with three fields: Normal play, Hands: 0
and Time: 0
- Just to the right, a pink and yellow configuration indicating Rake,
Pot and Limit
- Most of the rest of the table's center- a series of gray boxes, of
various shapes (in an overall rectangle) with 14 choices, including
Normal, Case and Complete play, Statistics, Know Players, Watch Play
and others.
Overall, very crude-looking, especially in this day and age of more
sophisticated graphics.
INITIAL CONFIGURATION-
I was a little unsure of where to start, so I went to Help and
deducted that the Option box was my start. Since Help didn't provide
much help in general, I browsed around various buttons on my own.
Initially you can configure bet range ($200/$400 max, or single spread
limit available of 1-4-8-8 with a checkbox) and rake type, although
structure is limited by the software to setting 3 blocks for raked
pots and a $10 per stage rake limit.
This is handled in a misleading way, however. Instead of
entering the dollar amount of rake for the first, second and third
dollar thresholds- $10 in my testing- you set the value for the rake
divided by 10. So, to get a $0.50 rake, you set the rake to $5… which
is then divided by 10 during play to get the desired value. After
playing with the games for a while, I finally realized why my $3/6
game was raking by dimes….
You can also set the delay in milliseconds between actions, other
checkbox options such as skipping "garbage" hands and showing cards
during play. There are also settings to affect certain Play types,
such as Watch Play or enabling the Advisor. Disabling the Advisor
doesn't block you from using the Hint advice; it only prevents it from
popping up automatically when your actions disagree with the
Advisor's.
One unusual Preference choice- "Display the next card in the deck
at the end". Since I didn't understand it (a teaser to torture
yourself with?), I tried it and nothing noticeable happened. It must
be a Blackjack game setting?
One difference from Wilson- you can resize the main window from
full screen into adjustable screen. You are not locked into full
screen, always on top mode like you are in Turbo Texas Hold'em.
Another feature, one that is much simpler to configure than in
Wilson's product- you can quickly move the dealer button before any
hand to any seat position that you want, even in the normal play game,
in a clockwise direction. It may screw up your Statistics to do that,
but that's your choice.
You can change any configurations by stopping the game in
progress, making adjustments and restarting a new game. Not sure yet
if that affects your Statistics.
CONFIGURING PLAYERS
You can configure the 20 existing Player Types, which initially
all have the exact same settings- slightly more tight/aggressive than
the midpoint 50/50%. You accomplish this by using either sliding
percentage scales (0-100% for More or Less Tight, More or Less
Aggressive for each street), or by hitting the preset Model buttons
(Solid, Caller, Loose, etc) which have various street-linked
percentages assigned for both areas.
One problem- the features list says I can configure "thousands"
of players, but the software seems to limit me to the 20 existing
Player Types. I could not find any information anywhere in Help about
how to add new additional players onto the existing list.
You can select Player Types or selections such as Solid, Caller,
Loose from a list for each seat and assign that playing type, or set
Player Type NoPlayer for a empty chair. Unlike Wilson, you can choose
what seats are empty. The human player is always in seat #3. There
is also a Player Type called Unknown, which could randomly be of any
of the preset Model types. Only this player can be replaced randomly
at each specified seat, based on a set duration of time before someone
takes his or her place.
One interesting feature with this Unknown player is a timer of
sorts for figuring out their playing style. Question marks "?" are
steadily removed. The description from Help (yes, I found something
in Help!): " One ‘?' mark will be erased every half an hour (18
hands), it means that you should have been getting familiar with the
playing style of that ‘Unknown' player. This is for the purpose of
testing your skill of recognizing the playing style of an unknown
player"
Of course, the Know Button lets you cheat and reveal all of the
Player Types at each seat (including the Unknown player). Not sure why
we needed a whole permanent button for that function.
CONFIGURING LINEUPS- there is no direct equivalent in Acespade's
product. You can save the current game, with settings and assigned
players, into a file, then reload the file. You can't plug in this
game situation within your current Options settings- those are
replaced with the saved file's values.
HELP- only source of Help is a Help button in the button block in the
middle of the screen table. No F1 links are available.
NOTE- Browsing through the online documents seems to indicate
that this is the Help file for ALL of Acespade's games. The help
documents themselves have comments that all listed items might not
apply. There are several one-page sections on tournaments, which is
a separately purchased game that is not included … and there are some
references to buttons and functions in Blackjack, as well as other
mentions of casino games.
There is very little actual help, in that when I eventually found
the area related to what I was looking for, there wasn't much
description in many areas.
Another problem is that the help documents don't give complete
information for all of the items. For example, the Option button
opens a yellow window with 8 buttons- Rule, Preference, Payer Type
(which was supposed to be Player Type, evidently), CardBack (which
gives a choice of 13 standard Microsoft card types), OK, Default, Load
and Save.
In the Other Buttons topic, the Option Screen Button section
doesn't even MENTION the first four. There was nothing available in
the Index list about some of them (I found Player Type). When I used
the Find option in Index, and carefully read the document, I found
Preference…. not that it explained anything about it. Rule I couldn't
find anywhere except in documents discussing Blackjack.
Overall, it was a pretty frustrating experience of limited
success trying to find setup help or explanations in the Help system.
ACTUAL PLAY- Pro 2002
From the main screen, with the 14 choices, the selection you make
determines the type of game that you play. There are 5 playing
options- Normal, Case, Compete, Internet and Watch:
NORMAL- This deals the regular ring game. Cards in Pro 2002 are
smaller than Turbo Texas Hold'em, but still visibly discernable when
dealt out initially. The current button position is noted by a small
circled D on the blue bet bar of the associated player seat. The
blinds appear as small blue bands across the cards, with the amount of
the blind indicated.
GRAPHICS
The left middle of the table shows the game box with the game mode
(Normal play), the number of hands dealt so far and the elapsed time,
in minutes and hours. The ongoing Rake amount, game bet limits and
current pot are displayed in the pink/yellow area. The right side of
the table displays a yellow "Please wait" box that is eventually
replaced when it gets to the human player.
An orange frame box that encompasses one player's cards indicates the
current acting player. At the same time, a yellow "bets allowed" box
appears which obscures most of the hand that is currently being acted
upon. This box shows three lines, listing what amount is needed to
call and what the minimum and maximum raises are. You cannot turn off
this box, even if the Advisor is turned off.
This feature seemed pointless to me. Even if it is a spread
betting structure, I should know what I'm supposed to bet. If a
player needs THAT much help, every round, then they really need more
help than any software game could ever provide.
The CurBet portion of the blue bet bar shows how much each player has
bet on the current street, up to that point, while the AllBet section
shows the total bet throughout the hand. I didn't get any value out
of the first number at all, personally- who cares what I've put in so
far on this street?
One note- when any player folds, including the human player,
the CurBet value is replaced by a note indicating what street the
player folded on. Again, other than making it easier for me to work
the hand backwards and see how many players my opponents and I were
facing at different times to try to figure their possible hands out, I
don't see the gain from this feature…. and it's a crutch for the lazy,
in my opinion.
IN-PLAY OPTIONS
When the action gets to the human player, a gray block containing
various In-Play buttons replaces the yellow wait box. These options
are available also when you stop a game and exit to this screen.
Besides betting actions, Help and Quit, the options are:
· Peek Others- shows all of the other active hands at the table at
once. Can't be configured to show only one hand at a time. The
number of hands shown is limited to the hands that are currently
active- folded hands aren't visible. The only way to show everyone's
cards is to use the Replay Mine feature that appears after the
completion of the hand.
· Hide Mine- turns your cards face down. When this is enabled, the
button changes to Show Mine.
· Hint- shows several small windows that open in pairs in various
places. Alternates between sets for every click on the Hint button:
First Set:
1) Action expectation box (middle of table)- Shows calculated value
in dollars for each betting action available, along with a
recommendation and a canned explanation of the reason for the
recommended action. This action advice seems to be based on the most
profitable or least costly option as displayed
2) Strength box (on top of your cards)- Pre-flop, calculates Win and
Loss percentages for your 2-card hand… but I'm not sure what the
percentages are based on. Post-flop, displays you hand's strength in
relation to the other active hands, along with a calculated win/loss
percentage as calculated at that stage of the hand.
3) Opponents' Strength boxes- Blue boxes, over each opponent still in
play, showing their last action, hand strength relative to all other
active hands, along with win/loss percentages as calculated at that
stage of the hand.
Second Pair-
4) Possible hand window (middle of table)- displays calculations on
possible hands for each seat number that has made an active action in
the play so far. Example, the UTG raiser in seat 6 and my button hand
are displayed with values, the SB and BB are not. There are 5
categories displayed, depending on the street:
· Pre-flop- High Pair (JJ), Middle Pair (7's- TT), Low Pair, Two
Offsuit Cards QJ or better and Two Suited Cards. Percentages never
add to 100%, as the unsuited hands below QJ (as detailed in the
Statistic charts associated with hand strength, I assume) evidently
take up the rest.
· Post-flop- Two pairs or better, Top Pair (a pair equal to or
greater than the highest board card), Lower pair, Overcard and Flush
Draw.
5) Bets allowed box- Call, Min and Max Raise window, over my cards,
as previously described.
6) Opponents' action- Small blue bar showing only the associated
player's last action
Some strange quirks that I noticed with the possible hand
calculations window:
a) When the action first arrived to me, all my statistics were 0%, as
if I didn't know what my hand was yet. After I acted and it was my
turn to act again, my hand is now 100% determined.
b) If my hand falls into two categories such as Overcard and Two
Suited, the percentages can be duplicated. Seeing 100% for two
possibilities, while technically accurate, seemed silly. There is no
need to see percentages on my hand- I know what it is.
c) Opponents' hand possibilities and related percentages may be based
on the cards that have been folded, that you shouldn't normally know
about, as well as the current pot odds and the cards that you hold.
I'm having trouble nailing down exactly how these are being
calculated.
d) Flush draws that are possible are listed individually, but straight
draws aren't- I assume they are lumped in with 2 pairs or better
stats. Example- I have A8off, other player has Ad10d. When the flop
comes JQT rainbow with no diamonds, no flush draw is listed currently
(I'd seen other hands where a four-flush on the flop, or the turn, was
listed as a separate category- this category must be
situation-specific). However, the gutshot Broadway draws aren't
listed either.
e) The Fold expectation is never anything but $0.00, as if folding
incorrectly and losing a pot that should have been yours doesn't cost
you anything. I guess we only care about this individual bet's
expectation…
f) I could rarely get the Win/Loss statistics to be 100% Loss, even
when heads-up on the river. I haven't yet seen a 100% win (except
when everyone folded).
· Fold- you fold your cards, the play of the hand continues as in a
normal game. There are strange delays in computer players'
decisions, of whole seconds, that don't seem to make sense. \
The delays seem to be mainly associated with a computer player
that has to initially react to another player's bet action, even if
it's a simple fold. Later folders whip by, until a different action
is taken… which also slows down the next player's processing time.
· & stop- Folds your hand AND stops the action of the game, sort of .
The hand is not played out in the same manner as when you folded.
Instead, betting and raising actions are suspended, while calling
actions are allowed. The same players that stayed in during the round
that you folded in all remain… yet they stop their actions as well.
The pot is frozen after the players that remained have called,
the rest of the cards are dealt out very quickly, without any other
action by any of the players and the winner is declared…almost as if
it's a strange Zip feature. No decisions are being made, so no
obvious delays are occurring.
This leads to a situation where, if you fold, the pot can be much
larger (because of post-fold action) and have different players than
if you Stopped the game. An example- I folded pre-flop UTG, the KK
in seat 5 re-raised the AToff in seat 4. Only seat 4 called. The
two players went to the river, the KK won $49. When I Stopped
pre-flop, the AT, KK, seat 7 and the BB all just called the flop.
The four players were still in place when the KK took the now-locked
$12 pot amount (no rake is evidently taken, either).
This does affect Statistics, since it's the last played action
that is committed to the Statistics, regardless of how you got there…
a MAJOR failing, in my view, as it makes no sense why the other hands
are played differently, merely based on my type of folding action.
POST-PLAY OPTIONS- Besides Continue (deal the next hand) and Stop
(exist Normal Play, return to main starting screen), the two other
choices are:
- Play it again- Starts the hand over as if you haven't played it
before, play the hand again.
One problem that I noticed- the action dollar value calculations
can change on each replaying of the hand. I kept re-running a
scenario where I was UTG with Qc 9c and the only caller was the BB.
During the flop and turn, the BB would bet. On the flop, the
calculations changed from $0.40 for Call, -$0.60 for Raise to -$0.70
for Raise (seemed to alternate). On the turn, Call ranged from $2 to
$2.20, Raise from -$0.10 to $0.00 to +$0.10. I'm not sure how an
action on the turn could be calculated as a loss one minute and a gain
the next, when nothing has changed….
Another problem I saw during the replaying of the hand above- Raise
was clearly financially inferior to calling, yet the Advice was to
raise the turn, whether Raise was a negative expectation or not.
- Replay mine- Replays the hand while exposing all players' cards.
You must click the Continue button to initiate every player's previous
action. These actions are locked in; you can't change any of these,
including your own, on every street. If you hit the Stop button, the
play aborts quickly and exits the Normal Play mode, returning to the
main screen. I can then use the main screen's Continue button to jump
back into Normal Play mode and receive my next hand, with the button
having moved. I cannot get back to the hand that I was walking
through… so, if I want to replay it, I have to remember all of the
cards and reconstruct it in Case play mode….
Hitting the Continue button repeatedly, just so I don't exit
the game and lose my current hand, gets tedious very quickly.
One problem- statistics aren't available during game play (or during
the replays of a hand). You have to stop the current play mode, view
them, and Continue on to the next hand.
Also note that raises are always limited to the setting, even
when heads-up (no unlimited raising is available, as it is in b&m
play).
STATISTICS
These are only available from the main screen, after you
temporarily "quit" whatever game mode you are in. All game modes seem
to affect these statistics. Two buttons access the same screen: Hand
Rankings and Statistics. Once you open the bland turquoise statistics
window with either button, all of the same choices are available,
using 18 available buttons on the bottom of this pop-up window.
There is no way for the software to print directly any of the
statistics charts. It also seems silly to make the awkward path in
and out of the game, just to see the statistics… but since they
evidently aren't committed to the overall totals until the game is
existed, I guess the Acespade folks didn't have any other way to
accomplish this.
Hand Rankings button- Opens the statistics window to the Ranking10
choice, a grid that displays pre-flop rankings of 2-card hands, based
supposedly on having 10 players in the game. Ace through 2 runs
across the top as columns, A-2 down the left side as rows. The ranking
for the pairs is above the column headers, with AA being 1st and 22
being ranked 76th. Unpaired hands are read by pairing the row card
with the column card. Each combination is assigned a ranking number,
between 1 and 169. A diagonal gap separates the suited from the
unsuited cards combinations.
The statistics window has 8 other buttons, Ranking2-9, that
supposedly adjust the hand rankings based on those number of players.
Some of the numbers do change, although I'm not sure how accurately.
Statistics button- Opens the stats window with the Current
Statistics Report displayed. This displays the stats for each player
in various categories, from the Play Mode that you just exited to get
to the statistics window. Stats such as Highest/Lowest Win, Profit
by the Hour and Year (seems to be based on 5 ½ hours a day, 7 days a
week, 52 weeks a year), how often each player folded pre-flop.
The associated Hist/Curr button flips between this screen and
the Historical Statistic Report, which is the on-going accumulated
statistics (from all play modes). The stats window has an Erase
button (to clear stats from both views) and an Update button, which
clears the Current Stats and adds their values to the Historical
Stats.
There is a Next button that scrolls through 5 displays, related
to either the Current Stat or Historical Stat view. Besides the
Curr/Hist charts, the Next button pulls up grids that can show, for
the human player, profit/loss by 2-card hand type (same format as
Ranking grid). Other choices show the Confidence Limit for all
players (range of the expected hourly profit with a certain level of
confidence, based on the player's past playing performance and with a
Confidence percentage), as well as the consolidated percentage of hand
types held by all winners.
Strangely, two specific charts that Help mentions are intended
specifically for Hold'em- Hand Per Occurrence Value and Hand Total
Value, showing the average and total profit by hand type- are not
anywhere in the available charts.
Other buttons in the stats window include Saving and Loading
statistical files, access to general Help, a finally a Chart button
which displays what must be the ugliest graph that I've ever seen. It
charts the human player's profit by hour on an XY-type axis grid,
using a barely discernable red line to map profit swings.
OTHER PLAY MODES
INTERNET- This feature is described as an advisory tool to use during
Internet play. It operates somewhat in the same manner as Case.
Cards are dealt down until the human player is reached, then you pick
each card that you receive in the Internet game from the entire deck.
Thereafter you control each player's actions, without being able
to see his or her cards, and select what cards come on each street.
The Advisor kicks in with advice on actions as usual. At the end,
you assign the Internet cards to the players that showed their hands
after the river. The system evidently then calculates statistics.
I'm assuming that the idea is that you have this game up and
mirror the Internet "live" game that you are in, so you can get advice
on how to play. I guess that, if you just accepted the Advisor's
recommendations without thinking, you might be able to keep up with
play…. I'm not sure what you'd learn, however, unless you captured the
hands somehow and replayed it back later for learning.
COMPETE- This feature is what matches up the closest to Wilson's
Challenge feature. This Play type is a tool for you to directly
compare your play results against the Advisor player, named Roy, using
the exact same cards and hand order. Advice is available, including
the pop-up action suggestion when you make the ‘wrong' decision, as is
Peek Others. The latter option shouldn't be available, in my opinion,
until possibly after the hand for analysis. You shouldn't be able to
get help with the play of the hand- that's why you're competing.
It seems as if the human player and Roy are playing the hand
street-by-street, one after the other. After both players have
completed the hand, a yellow money comparison Post-It, for this hand
and accumulated total, displays showing totals for your player and
Roy. You then have buttons to either play the hand again "live", with
the same choices of regular options as if you didn't play the hand the
first time, or to walk through the Replay your hand or Roy's hand.
The Replay options are not live, but walk through the hand's
progress, seat by seat, action by action with all cards exposed for
every seat. You have to trigger each action, for each seat, in the
process by hitting the Continue button, or Stop to end the replay.
You do not control any actions, or have the ability to change any
actions- you only control the step-by-step walkthrough.
Unfortunately, once you are in Replay mode, you again cannot
Stop the review and go back directly to the Compete game in progress.
If you don't tediously hit Continue through the entire review, it
closes out the Compete Play mode and you have to restart Compete Play
with a new hand.
You cannot save the game in Compete mode and come back to it
after closing out Pro 2002. Statistics can be saved, but Options
didn't save the current state or hand position of the game that I
closed.
One other comment- Stop doesn't mean stop the hand, it only stops
your play of the hand (i.e. you fold). Roy's hand is played out, a
small yellow sign ask you to wait for Roy's play. This also occurs if
you force everyone to fold, but Roy evidently did not. You have to
use Quit to escape the hand. I'm not sure that the distinction is
clear enough between Stop and Fold.
The same irritating delay in the decision-making process can be
see here in Compete Play. The example I ran into: All fold to me,
where I sit in early middle position with A6off. I raise instead of
folding as advised- only the cutoff seat's Solid player calls after a
second's delay with Kd Td. After about 4 seconds, the Caller BB calls
with 10c3c.
The flop comes 7d 4s 2h. BB checks to me, I bet, cutoff calls.
It takes 8 whole seconds for the BB to decide to CALL (?!?!while
having only a backdoor straight double draw and a weak overcard,
against a pre-flop raiser and cold-caller?!). Turn is Qd. I bet,
KT flush draw of course calls and BB takes TEN SECONDS to finally make
the fold. I can see no reason for all of the delays, even though the
BB was a Caller and a dumb one at that….
By the way, Ad hits the river, KT instantly bets his lock after
my check. I guess Solid players don't have to think….
TESTING TOOL PLAY MODES
CASE- In this Play mode, User deals, in turn, one card at a time
from the entire exposed deck to each player in order to set the
beginning hands pre-flop. You have the option to deal an Unknown card
to any player, if you choose. Play then proceeds as if a Normal game,
with some twists. You now control the actions of every player, at
every street. You also choose every card that is dealt at every
street
Your hand is still the only hand that triggers the Advisor popup
window if your action is "incorrect." This, however, seems a little
overdoing it, since you control all of the actions. One example: on
the river it suggested that the human player go for a check-raise… and
I "fell" for it, making the next person bet into me… Another
irritation: there are STILL delays between hands, as if the software
calculates something. Some of these are processed slowly, evidently.
Also, when the Advisor displays the hand rankings pre-flop, it
only ranks the hands that have been acted upon so far (whether known
or not), and ranks based ONLY on those hands. If a hand hasn't been
gotten to yet, such as the button, or is in a blind that hasn't had to
act yet, they are not included in the rankings. So, in a current
8-player game (I folded one original exposed player), there is a
ranking 1st through 5th which ignores the buttons and the two blinds.
One big problem, in my opinion- if you assign an Unknown card to
a player, you cannot assign a second, known card to that player- they
automatically get an Unknown card. In addition, when actually running
through the play of the hands for analysis, you cannot Peek Others for
those unknown hands… yet you still have to make a playing decision for
the Unknown hands.
After the flop, when Hint is triggered, the blue windows
displaying each hand's relative strength will appear… yet you still
can't see what's going on. This renders the analysis of the hand
almost useless- how can you learn anything about playing strategy if
all of the Unknown players are betting blind, in a sense? Also, the
strength ratings make no sense.
After walking through the entire hand, without ever seeing the
cards of the Unknown players, the remaining unused cards reappear in
the middle of the table, along with the entire 5-card board. Only the
players that didn't fold still remain.
You are then presented with three choices for assigning cards to
the unknown players- Unknown Hand, Unknown Card and Do Not Care.
Unknown Hand assigns a two-card hand immediately. Unknown Card now
works differently- instead of assigning one card at a time around the
table, you now assign two cards to each player before moving on. I'm
not sure why this change in process occurs, but it's a welcome one.
In addition, you can now assign an unknown card and a known card
to the same player- again, a welcome change, if a confusing switch.
Once you assign all of the cards, the remaining deck disappears and
the current winning hand is displayed. You can then run Continue,
Play It Again, Replay Mine or Stop. Playing again keeps all of the
cards you just set, including the new? Unknown cards, and lets you
walk through the hand again, step by step as before. The 5 board
cards can not be changed, they appear automatically. The replay also
brings back into the game the folded hands, letting you decide to take
whatever action you want with them.
Do Not Care was evidently literal- two unknown cards show in
that player, then the game zips to the river and ends. You can assign
cards, then winner is displayed based on newly assigned cards, and
then you can replay or end.
After an extended replay/add cards/replay analysis (see the Advice
section), I finally gave up without ever finding out what the hidden
cards were.
Another problem- you cannot go back to the Case hand that you are
currently analyzing and make a simple change before reanalyzing.
Instead, you have to redistribute all of the cards again and start
over. Very tedious.
A bigger problem is that the calculations for hand action value
differ from what was given during ring play, though they didn't seem
to change from Play it Again to Play it Again. When I recreated the
Qc 9c UTG vs. 8d 6h hand from the regular play example that I
described above, the preflop Call and Raise were both -$0.20 (which
certainly seems correct for the comment, but incorrect in that they
have the exact same expectation).
WATCH- This game "type" allows you to let the computer play all of
the hands, face up, in a continuous manner. If you don't want the
hands to run automatically, a setting in Option forces you to trigger
the next hand. No advice is available.
One problem- There seems to be no way to force a delay
between hands that is applied universally. Some hands seem to stall
and make decisions, then three or more hands fold in a blur of action
(before you can see their cards). Even the max 9999 setting on
Option/Preference/"View time for each hand" doesn't change this.
And the ones that stall are doing so for no discernable
reason. Example: QToff in early position is facing a raise UTG from
a Solid player with KK. There are several whole seconds of delay
before the QT decides to fold. That decision should have taken ONE of
the game's milliseconds.
Overall, I noticed a significant delay repeatedly, if not
consistently, while playing the various game modes. It seems as if
the system's calculations really bog down when a particular player
faces an action (bet, raise) from a preceding player, even if the play
should be obvious such as a fold.
These Play options are the closest that Acespade's software gets to
Wilson's testing tools.
SGarcia
re-adding the Advice and Evaluation sections as I originally intended
to do, as "responses" to the Overview. That way, at least this will
all be grouped. I apologize for the other clutter.
(original Advice section)
ANALYSIS/ADVICE
This, of course, is the big requirement for a lot of players, and
the one that evidently generates the most controversy, from what I've
read on the Web. Because this is such a specific area of
contention, and because this evaluation had grown so large, I decided
to post this separately from the other areas that I evaluated.
My opinion on poker advice in general, and even more so for
advice generated by a software poker game, is that advice should be
taken as a suggestion, not an iron-clad rule to be slavishly followed.
Analysis and advice from any source should be used as one of many
tools intended to make you think about the play of the related hands
and situations.
Advice, preferably very accurate advice, should NOT be used as a
crutch or a substitute for your own reasoning and analysisů no matter
how learned the source or how penetrating the conclusions. If you are
looking for the infamous "cookie cutter" approach to learning how to
play, you will not do very well long-term, IMO.
I'm stepping off of my soapbox now. I'll walk through Wilson's
product first, then Acespade's. Readers who have extensive playing
knowledge can comment on the value of the advice given, for the
specific situation.
WILSON
Before I walk through the regular Advisor functions in Turbo Texas
Hold'em 4.0, there is an additional software program that can be
purchased separately and used for play analysis. On the 4.0 disk,
there is a demo program that shows a brief example of this
functionality:
SID Demo- requires sound card files
- Configurable, can change the amount of info given
- Based on the demo, this additional software centers on analyzing
your erroneous hand and bet choices, during a certain number of hands.
Evidently gives you the minimum range for hand values that should be
played in a particular situation, based on various factors in place at
the time of the "erroneous" decision. It also comments about bet
choices that were made.
- In my opinion, this is mainly for beginners- it could be helpful in
walking through hands that are out of line, as well as viewing the
different points at which mistakes were made. More experienced
players will just find it tedious to sit through.
I wouldn't recommend investing in this option unless you're a
beginning player and can benefit from a step-by-step walkthrough of
intra-hand play and bet decisions (which, of course, a lot of new
players COULD use). If you do need it initially, I think you'll
outgrow it fairly quickly. If you don't need it, save the money
towards the next Turbo HE upgrade.
Standard Advice functionality
- Initial Advice screen shows current hand, position and pot details,
Advisor recommendations and minimum call/raise hand values
- Advice in 4.0 supposedly takes into account the number of players.
- There is a new Help button which gives more detailed summaries of
what the various categories mean
The advice supposedly is given as an Expectation Analysis based
on hand possibilities and some kind of implied odds calculations; also
is supposed to take into consideration whether you've been leading the
betting or not. In evaluating the advice given during ring play, the
following settings were in place:
Ě Showing multiple recommendations
Ě Often suggesting raising over calling (pre 4.0, the Advisor was
locked into a very aggressive raise vs. call recommendation mode)
Ě Players were set to adjust to extreme game conditions, such as
on-tilt behavior patterns and check-raising. Some player Profiles
were allowed to adjust and/or vary their style of play, including
adjusting to the raiser's position
An additional source of information is available when a flush draw
flops. An Expect button appears in the main Advisor screen, along
with a comment about the expectation for your draw. The Expect button
opens a screen with a generic discussion of how the expectation is
calculated. It also calculates an actual profit calculation,
positive or negative, for your draw.
When I critiqued the following example, the Lineup that I used
consisted of these Profiles:
1) Blank spot at Seat 1
2) Bullets McGee- Average player, sees 1/3 of flops, doesn't raise
much pre-flop, weak on folding Ax hands.
3) Gypsy Rose- described as solid pre-flop, doesn't raise much
pre-flop, tight afterwards.
4) Dr Jeckle- described as Tight, advisor-type supposedly
5) Bret Maverick- This solid profile (labeled as Tight in Turbo
Hold'em) used to be the advisor profile in previous software versions,
according to the description.
6) Lollie LaRue- Tight, more aggressive after flop than pre-flop.
7) Harry the Horse- "average" before flops, sees 35%, more
tight-aggressive afterwards
8) Joe- passive low limit player, described as Custom
9) Moe- passive low limit player, described as Custom
10) Human player- could there be a better poker player?
Examples: Game settings- Advisor often recommends raising over
calling. $3/6 game.
1) I have Ks 4s in the cutoff. 3 callers, up to me. Advice is to
fold (? With at least one more caller, maybe another, to make 5 other
players probable?) I call, making pot $22. Button and small blind
also call. Flop comes 8c 2c Jh. When BB bet gets to me, Advice says
fold and I do.
2) One middle position caller, others fold to cutoff. I'm on the
button with Ac Qd. Advice is to raise, which I do, knocking out the
blinds.. Flop comes 4d Kd 6h. Check, cutoff bets. Advice is to either
fold or raise (hmmm.. well, calling does suck). Raising wins me the
pot. Middle caller had Qs 7s, cutoff had Ah 10c (must have been a
"find out where I am" bet).
3) All fold to cutoff, who calls. Button folds, SB calls. I have Ad
3h and check. Flop comes Js 3d 7c. SB bets, Advisor suggests
calling. Don't like it a lot, but I call, as does cutoff. Turn is
Qd- SB bets again. Advice STILL says to call (huh?), which I do.
Cutoff smartly folds. River is the 5c. SB bets, Advice STILL
suggests calling (double huh?) No WAY I can win by calling unless
it's a pure bluff- I raise. SB folds their Jc 10h (? Queen scared
him?). Cutoff had 6s 5s.
4) I'm in early middle position with Qd Js. 2 folders to me, I
call (?). All others besides BB fold. Flop is 3c Qc Qh. BB bets
(seeing where he's at?), Advice is to Raise- not in THIS spot with my
good kicker! It's slowplay timeů I call.
Turn is 6d, BB bets again. Advice is to raise, I still call,
waiting for the riverů which is 4h. BB bets again. Advice is call or
raise (duhh). I raise, BB folds (BB has 3d 2d- why was he betting the
turn and river?)
I replay the hand, raising pre-flop. The BB still calls and bets
the flop. I raise this time, BB calls (?). On the turn, BB bets (?),
I raise, he folds.
I replay the hand again, calling preflop, raising on the flop.
On the turn the BB bets? (I'm raising only with a flush draw?), I
raise, BB folds.
Replay again, raise the flop, only call the turn. On the river,
the BB bets (all I could have is a flush draw?), I raise, BB folds.
5) Two from the button, with 3c 3d. All fold pre-flop to me,
Advice is to fold, I raise instead. Cutoff is the only caller. Flop
is Qc Js 8d. Advice is to either check or bet. I bet, cutoff calls.
Turn is 4h. Advice is to bet? (I guess because I was leading?) I
bet, the cutoff folds his Ad 5d. The other 3 folders had Qh 5s
(button), 8c 4d SB, 6d 7c BB.
6) I'm in the cutoff with Ah Th. UTG calls, an early position raises
folds everyone up to me. Advice says to call (a little dangerous?),
which I do. All others fold, leaving two of us.
Flop is Jh 6c 4h. Advice tells me to raise the bettor, bettor
just calls my raise. 8d on the turn, early seat bets. Advisor says
call (pot odds of slightly under 5-1 for my slightly over 4-1 draw,
plus maybe pairing the Ace as a winner). 6d on river, fold to the QQ
who was betting.
7) I'm in early position with Kc Kd. UTG folds, I raise, only the
BB calls. Flop Js 6h 5s. BB check-raises, Advisor says to Reraise (?
A little dangerous, considering that the BB went for a checkraise). I
raise, BB re-raises, I call. Turn is 8s, which the BB bets. Advice
is to raise?(unless he has no hand, where is he going after reraising
me and then betting into me?).
I ran two choices from this point- I raised once, BB called and
checked the river 2h. The other time, I merely called the BB's bet on
the turn, the BB bet on the river.
Both cases, the BB won with two pair- he held 6d 5d. Seemed a
little too aggressive betting two pair into a possible flush and
improbable straightů
8) I'm on the button with Kd Qd. All fold to cutoff who calls.
Advice is to raise, which I do. SB and cutoff call. Flop is 10d 5s
6d. SB bets, cutoff calls, Advice is to raise as semi-bluff on the
flush draw and overcards. Draw is calculated as a $4.66 expectation,
pot is $25. I raise, both call.
3c is the turn, both check. Advice is to bet as a semi-bluff,
value of flush draw now $3.63 for $36 pot. My bet folds the SB,
cutoff calls. 5h on the river, cutoff checks. Advisor says to check?
I bet as my only chance, cutoff calls with his Js Th and wins. SB
had Qh 6h.
I replay the hand, only calling preflop. SB, BB and cutoff see
the flop, which the cutoff bets. Advice is to either call or raise,
with a $3.43 expectation on my draw for a $19 pot. I raise, all three
call. On the turn, all check to me (SB checks two pair NOW?). Advice
calculates my draw is down to $3.00 for the $33 pot., says to check or
semi-bluff bet. I bet, only BB calls (top pair folds in cutoff?).
River 5 prompts the BB to check his two pair (had 9d 3d). Advice is
to check now? I bet, BB folds.
Replay again, calling pre-flop and on the flop. On the turn the
SB bets, BB calls, JT folds again (?) Advice is to just call with
$3.00 draw, which I do. River, we all check, SB wins with two pair.
ACESPADE
Texas Hold'em Pro 2002 ADVICE-
The advice that Acespade gives seems questionable in a frequent
number of cases, as do their money and percentage calculations.
Contradictions seem to pop up frequently enough, and early enough in
the number of hands played, that I noticed it and didn't have to go
hunting for bad examples.
One problem with the Advice given by the Hint button is that the
action values can contradict what the Advisor suggests. Again, using
the Qc 9c example from Normal/Case play above, I would see a positive
or neutral Call dollar value, but a clearly negative, by whole
dollars, Raise $$ valueů. and yet the Advisor would tell me to raise
anyway, even though my hand only have a 30% chance or so of winning.
This makes very little sense and would be very confusing to
new players. They may not get the nuance of taking an action that may
have the worst of it in order to increase their chances of winningů
much less recommending to players that they should take negative
expectation actions as a ruleů
The following are all with the same $3/6 game that I was using
above. Most of the examples were generated with the following table
lineup, in order by seat. I didn't adjust any of the Player settings
that defaulted as listed below:
1. Solid Player- 63% aggressive all streetsů 58% tight pre-flop, 55%
on all other streets
2. NoPlayer (i.e. empty seat)
3. Human Player- incredibly expert player, couldn't pin down his
playing style (!)
4. Weak Player- 45% aggressive all streetsů 63% tight pre-flop, 58%
on all other streets
5. Tight Player- 63% aggressive all streetsů 63% tight pre-flop, 58%
on all other streets
6. Unknown player, replaced every 75 minutes
7. Solid player
8. PlayerType1- set to Solid Player characteristics
9. Weak
10. Caller- 27% aggressive pre-flop, 30% afterů40% tight preflop, 32%
after
First example- An Unknown player UTG raised, everyone folds to me
on the button. I re-raise to get the blinds out with my Ah 8d.
Advisor squawks, telling me to fold because remaining in the hand has
negative expectations. Strangely, while my win/loss are at 23/75%,
the UTG player with the #1 strength hand is only 30%/68%. Neither of
the blinds are ranked because neither has acted yet, I guess.
I re-raise anyway, driving out the blinds. Flop comes JQT
rainbow, giving me a two-direction straight draw. UTG checks, Advisor
says to Bet (Check is $10.4, Raise is $10.50) because " I have the
best hand (ed. Note- how do I know that?) and I don't want to give a
free card" .. which should be what I DO mainly want here, unless
there's some chance that the UTG will fold to my semi-bluff. I am
rated to win 50%, Lose 46%ů while UTG is the reverse.
I check, seeing a nice, if dangerous 9s on the turn- meaning
that Kx and AK are possible straights, plus a flush draw in spades now
exists to beat my made straight. UTG bets. Advisor says raise with
my best hand, as a 76% winner. I raise, UTG re-raises.
Now, even though I'm still ranked at 76% win, and raising is
worth $3.60 more of the pot expectation than calling, the Advisor
states that "I should have raised back based on the previous hand
readings, but to be cautious, I'll just call in case I misread my
opponent's hand." I check the opponent's hand- he has Ad Td. So,
the win/loss percentages are wrong- I can't lose 16% of the time, I'm
a lock. I have the only straight. If the K comes, I split the pot.
So I cap it, the UTG instantly calls. The pot is $67.00.
The river is the Qs, putting a royal flush, quads and multiple
full houses on board. The Unknown player bets into me- maybe he's an
aggressive player, or thinks I'll fold to one bet after capping on the
turn?
At this point, once again the hand strength calculations and
advice contradict one another. My strength, while 1st, is a win/loss
of 58/29% (what is the other 13%- a floor ruling splitting the pot?),
while UTG is 29/58%. Advisor says "I'll raise because I have the best
handů" where calling is priced at +$45.10 and Raise is $46.90 (a gain
of only $1.80 with a lock hand? I get the $73 pot if he folds and
extra $6 if he calls..)
Also, the possible hands at this point for my opponent,
according to the Advisor- 42% straight or better, 2% top two pair,
53% second pair lower than Queens and Jacks, and 1% Overcard (with 2%
a crack-smoking pure bluffer, I guess). My re-raise results in a
$91.00 potů.
Here's a detailed example with various replays: The fourth hand
in the Normal Play series that I'm in, with 9 players at the table,
four players fold into my Ah 9h in late position. Folding is the
preferred play from the Advisor, at $0.00 cost, because calling is
ranked as -$2.00 and Raise at -$2.60. My win/loss is calculated at
23%/73%.
The hands I was facing at this point?
Weak player in cutoff: 3c 2 d
Tight player on Button: Kd 5h
Unknown player in SB: 8h Kc
Solid player in BB: 5d Jc
I raise. All hands fold. I collect $4.00 in blinds. Where's
my negative expectation? Everyone else's hands were crippled. Only
two hearts are accounted for as wellů. ??
Hand #10- Everyone folds to me in the SB with Qd 5c. Advisor says
to call because I don't have the best hand. The only hand left is the
Weak player BB with 6s 3c, which evidently is a better hand heads up
than my Queen. Calling is +$0.10, Raise -$1.2, Win/Loss 34/65%.
Personally, I'm either raising or folding in this spot. Raise gets me
the $9.00 pot and a $3.00 profit.
I replay the hand and call this time. Flop comes Jc 10c 5d. Now I
"suddenly" have the strongest hand, with a reversed win/loss of
63%/35%. Checking is +$3.90, Bet is the current $6 pot. The list of
possible hands for the BB? 2%- 2 pair 10%- Pair of Jacks or better
21%- pair under JJ 32%- Overcard 4%- flush draw. Since it
doesn't say, I assume the other 31% is a 9-high, no pair, no flush or
straight draw hand (if straight draws are even considered). I bet,
profit $3 again.
I replay the hand and check the flop this time. Advisor disagrees,
say that I should bet because "..if I do not bet, no-one will do. I
have the best hand and I do not want to give out free card." (No,
there are no typos by me in that sentence- that is exactly what it
displays). I check anyway. 9d comes, giving me either a nut (from
an 8) or weak (K-high) straight draw. Checking is now worth more of
the pot, $4.30, while betting takes it all. I'm a 72% chance winner,
BB's possible hands are now: 5% for two pair plus, 2% for Jacks or
better, 14% for pair of tens or lower, 27% for Overcard, 7% for flush
draw and 45% for nothing.
We both check to see the river: 3d. Now that the flush is completed,
I have a 92% winning chance (? Based on what, with a possible flush
and straight out there?), where checking is +$5.50- how can I lose
$0.50 in equity with the best hand? Now suddenly the Advisor says
that I should bet because I have the best hand (what changed about
what I know? I'm still the first action in the hand!). Possible BB
hands are 6% two pair, 1% top pair, 24% other pair, 29% flush drawů
and 40% nothing.
I check, the BB bets. My Strength is still 1st, but my win/loss drops
to 85%/15%. Calling is worth $8.40, Raise is almost worth the current
$11 pot. Advisor says "I'll raise because I have the best hand and
raising gives me the highest expectation" (duhhh!). BB hand is 13%
likely to be two pair, 2% to be top or overpair, 45% to be a lower
pair and 19% to be an overcard bluffů with only a 21% chance of a pure
bluff. I raise and the BB calls with his pair of threes, giving me a
$27 pot and $12 profit.
I play it again and bet the river this time. BB calls and I profit $8
on a $17 pot.
Here's an example from Watch play, where the computer is fully
in control of the play. 4 players just call, including the 2 blinds.
BB has 53 off. Flop comes A45 off. Unknown SB bets, BB calls.
Other two players fold. Turn card is A rainbow (no flush possible).
SB bets.
BB, who supposedly is a Solid player, calls a $6 bet when pot is
only $22. I calculate pot odds at 3.67 to 1, where the BB's draws are
now limited AT BEST to four 3's at 11.5-1, maybe trip 5's at 23-1.
Even the combined drawing odds only gives the BB about a 7.67-1 chance
AT BEST of catching a winning river card, while ignoring full houses
and possible higher straights (it IS the SB, where a 76 suited could
be possible, if doubtful). This is a CLEAR fold based just on current
pot odds. Implied odds aren't much better; either 4.66-1 (SB calls a
river bet with a losing hand) or 5.67-1 (SB bets and calls a raise)
when considering whether to put in this $6 call on the turn.
Regardless, both odds are still lower than catching one of 6 cards in
a perfect, non-counterfeited situation; therefore, once again, BB
should have folded.
Pot now $28. River card is a Jack. SB bets, BB calls (? Does he
think that the SB, which is a Solid player as it turns out, is a
maniac bluffer?) with his weak two pair, Aces and fives. SB's trip
Aces wins
Here's a series that I ran into during Compete Play: After
playing 6 hands, all fold to Unknown Player in seat 6, who raises.
Everyone else folds to me in BB with 8d6d in seat 3. Advice says to
call. Expectation was calculated at +$0.40 for calling, -$0.90 for
raising and $0.00 for folding. The advice, quoted exactly, said "I'll
call because I do not have the best hand and calling gives me the
highest expectation." However, my hand had a calculated Win value
of 29% and Loss of 70%ů. which makes sense (if correct percentages),
since the raiser had QdQh !!! I'm pretty sure I'm more than a 3.3-1
dog here and the pot was only $9.90 at the time.
I call because the software said so- that's the ONLY way I would
have called a single player who raised in early position, ESPECIALLY
when I don't know what type of player I'm against. Flop comes 7dAhKs.
Advice is to check , with a Win/Loss of 13%/83% and a -$2.50 Bet
expectation (is that all the Advisor thinks I'll lose with this bet in
a 3-6 game?). QQ bets, advice is to fold. Loss/Win is now 12%/86%,
as if the system is 2% more convinced than before that this hand is a
loser. I fold.
I review, stop and restart Compete twice. I'm now the button
with Qs3s. Every player folds to me and the two blinds (SB Weak, BB
Tight). Advice is to foldů which only make sense when the QQ in the
big blind is revealed. Was that advice based on what I am actually
up against, rather than the entire range of hands that I would face in
this situation? The Call was -$0.30, the Raise was -$0.40, with
Win/Loss of 29%/70%.
I raise on the ante steal and the expectation of a better hand
than most hands that would be in the blindsů. which is, I think, a
standard play/assumption for this situation . SB folds, BB re-raises
(duhhh). Pot is now $15.90 and the Advice is to call !?! Win/Loss
has dropped to 26/73%, but Call is now +$1.90 and re-Raise +$0.50 ?!?!
I call the re-raise from the Tight player because "I do not
have the best hand and calling gives me the highest expectation ."
Flop is 3c 6c 10h. BB bets her strong overpair. Advisor says "Most
often I'll play aggressively for the reasons of forcing a better hand
to fold, testing the water, and being unpredictable." Win/Loss is
now 45%/53% (huh?), Calling is +$8.40, Raising +$8.20 with a pot is
$21.80. Now, unless my 11-1 trip card falls, I lose unless the Tight
player is also stupid. I call.
Turn card 4s, making the board 3c 6c 10h 4s. Advisor says
that calling a $6 bet ($30.70 pot) without the best hand is now worth
+$12.10, while raising is +$11.90ů and I have a 49/51%, or almost
even-money chance to catch my 22-1 trip card on the river. So I call.
QQ instantly bets when the Kd rows into the river. NOW my
winning chance is only 26%, but calling a $6 bet from the pre-flop
raising, betting-every-street Tight player in order to win $42.70,
when the Advisor is STILL telling me I don't have the best hand, is
worth $6.80, and raising is even +$1.10!!! I raise- QQ instantly
calls and takes my money and the $54.70 pot.
I replay the hand again, calling pre-flop this time. The QQ
in the BB only checks this time (?) BB checks again on the flop-
guess what's coming? Flop advice says that, since my lowest board
pair now has a win/loss of 58%/40% against the BB, checking is +$4.20
(huh?) and Bet is +$7.00.. which, not coincidentally, is the size of
the potů so betting must mean I have a 100% success rate, right?
I bet into the checkraise (what a surprise!)- so much for the
guaranteed win. Calling with my pair of 3's and overcard kicker with
a 2-flush on board, against check-raising early position caller, is
"only" worth +$3.30 now that my win/loss is 33/64%. Raising is "only"
+$2.30, so I call. The turn card 4s brings the $6 bet out, and now my
25/74% hand is still +$1.80 to call to catch a $24.80 potů but raising
finally is a negative: -$4.10ů. Calling again with my baby pair gives
me a 20/78% on the Kd, with a GREATER profit in calling another $6
betů now +$3.10ů while raising will only cost me 30 cents in
expectation while trying to steal the $36.70 that's out thereů. So I
call and lose the $42.70 pot .
I replay the hand and go hyper-aggressive- I raise and re-raise
preflop. Pot is $24.80 when BB checks to me on my powerful flop of
the lowest pair. My threes have a 53% win rate and an expectation of
+$13.40 checking and $13.60 betting. Since "I have the best hand and
I do not want to give out free card," even though I only lose 20 cents
in profit by GIVING the free card, I'll bet it. Wimpy QQ only calls,
pot is $30.70 when the Queens check again. Now I'm 63% likely to win
the hand, and it doesn't matter whether I check OR bet, both are
+$19.30! Obviously adding the third overcard to my pair is costing
the Queens $6.00 (?). I bet, other player calls, then checks the
river K. Suddenly I "have" only a 13% chance of winning (where did I
lose 50%???). If I check, I profit $5.80. If I bet, I make only
$1.40. I'll check and gain $4.40 in expectationů.but wait, the
Advisor tells me that to steal $42.70 ".. and be unpredictable. I'll
bluff, and my opponents may get scared and fold" so I'll bet. There
is an instant call from the winning hand, who let me bluff all the
way, and she takes $54.70.
Here's the multiple replay example I ran in Case Play mode,
when I was using some Unknown cards. The card assignments were as
such:
a) SB- Unknown Hand for Tight player
b) BB- 8h 6s for Unknown player
c) Th 3s for Solid player
d) 7h 9s for Solid PlayerType1
e) Unknown Hand for Weak player
f) Unknown Hand for Caller
g) Jd 3h for Solid player
h) I give myself Qh As
i) 6h 2s on the button for the Weak player
I make all but the Jd call the blinds. Advice to me is to Raise (?-
oh, $0.70 call, $0.80 raise, Fold $0.00),- bad advice if they were
unknown hands and all called- yet my hand is only ranked 4th with a
12% win chance. I raise, make all 7 other hands call. I then make
the flop 5s 7c 5h, then make all players check to me.
The advice to my two overcards, with a 7% Win chance, ranked
dead last at 8th Strength (of course, the 6h 2s is ranked second, over
10h 3s ranked 3rdů an Unknown Hand was 1st)?? Bet the handů when
checking was worth $4 and betting only $3.10. I then make everyone
call. Pot is $69.00
I make the turn card the Qs, make all hands check to me. NOW at
least I'm ranked 1st, with a 39% win chance. Checking is worth $32.10,
betting $50.80 of the $69 pot. However, 6h 2s is still in 3rd place
with a 9% win - is position THAT important regardless of the cards
held? The 9s 7h is ranked dead last. I check, make button check.
I make the river 6d, make all check to me again. 9s7h is in 7th
place, below the 5th place hand ofů. 6h 2s!!!. I check, hand gets to
the part where I can assign new cards. I assign another Unknown Hand
to the BB in seat #5, give an Unknown Card plus the 9h to #9 and the
9c 8s to seat #10.
Playing again (after getting past the "winning hand") brings the
Jd 3h back into seat #1. I make everyone, including seat #1, call the
blinds. Now my AQoff is ranked 6th, with a 10% Win chance. The 9c8s
in seat #10 is 5th in strength (? Even with two 9's, two 6's and one
8 already accounted for?) The 9s 7h in seat #8 is ranked number 1??
The advice again is to raise when raise/call are both $0.30, so I
raise and make all hands call.
The same flop 5s 7c 5h appears and I make all check to me. I'm
ranked 8th out of 9, but with positive expectations of $3.60 for
either betting or checking. Somehow, the 6h 2s is STILL ranked in 2nd
place. Advice is to bet, so I do, making all call. On the turn,
ranked 1st, I ignore the bet advice and make everyone call. Somehow,
the 6h 2s is still in 3rd place - how exactly are they going to win?
On the river, giving seat #10 the top straight, I check everyone to
me. I'm still ranked #1 (is this based only on betting actions and
maybe position?) with a $71.10 expectation from betting the river.
The advisor claims that the 9c 8s has 0% chance of winning, is ranked
dead last at 9th place (huh?) The 10h 3s is ranked above the Jh 3dů
when the Jack kicker would obviously win between the two.
I hit Do Not Care, the straight obviously wins.
Play again, make everyone call pre-flop again. I just call this
time, make everyone check the flop to me. Now Check or Bet are both
worth $2.20, Advice is to check. My AQ is ranked 5th, the Jh 3d is
ranked #1 (huh?). When the Qs comes on the turn, I have the 9s7h bet
as a semi-bluff with the top two pair/poor kicker. I make everyone
call to me. AQ off is ranked 1st with a 13% chance of winning. I
call with a positive $11.60 call expectation, make all others call.
On the river, all check to me, I'm #1 with a 49% chance of winning
with my Queens-upů ignoring the possible slowplayed quads, full house
and river straight. Advice says to bet with a $68.90 expectation from
a $78 potů so I do.. making everyone call up to the 9c8s, who raises.
I make the Jd fold, then check Hint.
Advice is to call the raiser, with $75.40, as opposed to raising with
$81.00 expectation in the now $132 pot. I'm STILL ranked #1, with a
29% Win chanceů while the 98off is #2 with a 20% chance of winning
with their straight. The 6h 2s is ranked 5th at this point, well
above the 8h 6s in 8th place.. even though they have the same hand.
Since the money's greater in raising, I do. I make everyone else
fold to the 98off, who re-raises. Advice suggests calling a Caller
who is re-raising; my Call value is $41.50ů.
This is the point where I gave up on advice altogether, as well
as trying to chase down what the hidden hands were that were ranked in
various ways.
SGarcia
linked together.
(original evaluation posting)
Overall evaluation/comparison
Each area is evaluated, one software program against another, with my
preference for each category listed by company name.
GRAPHICS- Wilson
Contrary to what Acespade claims on their web site, their graphics are
much cruder than Wilson's standard table view…. and Wilson's Internet
table view is even farther ahead, presentation-wise. The main table,
in-game views and associated graphics reminds me of the early Windows
graphic upgrades from DOS. THAT might be a fair competition… against
the current Wilson software, it's not even close.
Anyone wishing to verify my statement without buying both games can
simply compare screen shots from each company's website. There are
also downloadable demos of the Turbo games from the Wilson site.
GAME PLAY- Wilson
Acespade's Pro 2002- Overall, the words "clunky" and "cluttered"
comes to mind when I play the regular ring game. The other analysis
play modes are worse, especially Case Play- it is literally draining
to walk your way through the hands in this mode.
Wilson Turbo Holdem- Play is much smoother and much closer to live
play in its feel. The flexibility in game speed and configurable
situations that can be easily tweaked and re-analyzed makes the game
very comfortable to play. The Challenge feature is enjoyable
competition and can also be a useful analysis tool.
STATISTICS/INFORMATION- Wilson
The presentation in Pro 2002 is, for want of a better word, "cheesy".
Dull, simple graphs or charts, dull colors. While the software does
have some unique statistic categories, such as yearly return on
investment and various ranking charts of all 169 card combinations,
there are a greater number of choices available in Turbo Hold'em.
ANALYSIS TOOLS- Wilson
Wilson's ease of use, flexibility of operation, varied and
sophisticated manual and high-speed analysis tools, along with extra
features such as the Challenge completely blow Acespade away, in my
opinion. Pro 2002 is not even close to having reasonable, workable
equivalents in analysis tools.
ADVICE- Wilson
As I detailed above, some of the playing advice in Wilson's
Turbo seems a bit erratic- sometimes too tight, sometimes too loose,
sometimes too aggressive or not aggressive enough. Over the long
haul, I don't know if my opinion would change based on volumes of
data. I also am not sure how much my natural aggressiveness colors my
interpretation of the advice's value or accuracy.
That being said… while I question both software games' advice in
some of the situations I ran into during initial play, I really think
Pro 2002's advice is generally unreasonable, if not useless. I found
the Acespade's calculations and advice to make so little sense (to the
point where I couldn't figure out why it was doing what it was doing),
that I don't think that I can ever bring myself to trust it or to use
it as a basis for learning.
While Acespade's marketing makes claims such as ".. delivers
the best decision in various situations. This can not be achieved by
software from other providers which uses only predefined decision
tables..," I don't see how this "best decision" can be safely
assumed, based on what I've experienced in a short time. While the
company may claim that "...Acespade's poker software has made novice
poker players who used to be beaten at low-limit poker tables become
expert players even at high-limit poker tables.", I highly doubt that
ANYONE could become even an expert LOW limit player by following this
software's advice.
PRICING (at the time of this March 2002 review)
Wilson- Individual games are listed at $90. Volume purchase discounts
may be available. Upgrades are $19 plus S+H, with upgrades coming
every year or so in my experience, depending on the game.
Acespade- Individual games are listed at $70, with certain two-game
packages priced at $110.
Upgrades- Supposedly runs $25 plus S+H. Sales person I talked to
said that upgrades are released every one to three years.
Yes, Pro 2002 is cheaper… but since I will never get much use
out of this software in the future (if I even use it again), and will
never buy another Acespade product again, the money was wasted.
Therefore, the extra $20 for Wilson is cheap when calculated over the
hours that I plan on using the software.
OVERALL RECOMMENDATION
I cannot recommend the Acespade Texas Holdem Pro 2002 product
on any basis. The play is much worse; the graphics are old; I cannot
figure out, much less trust, any of the Advice given, especially since
the calculations seem to be somewhat inconsistent or contradictory;
there are no worthwhile analysis tools, partially because the limited
tools that are available are aggravating to use; and there is no
equivalent to the high-speed, high-volume testing that Wilson's Turbo
Texas Hold'em 4.0 makes available.
For the quality of play and graphics, the flexible tools and
functions available and the general ease of use of the software, I
recommend Turbo Texas Hold'em 4.0.
SGarcia
Chet
it knowing how Wilson Software does business, but this kind of
information is what RGP should be all about! A TON of work went into
this post, much less the work to do the comparison of these products.
On the assumption the information is accurate, because I have no
intention of trying to duplicate this work, the majority of the RGP
Community should say, "Thanks". The minority, who find fault with
everything,can "Pound Sand"!
Ken Gordon
Ken Gordon
Kodiak, Alaska
"SGarcia" <sgra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8dd3b0b2.02041...@posting.google.com...
> .. and here is the Evaluation section. Hopefully these are now all
> linked together.
> (original evaluation posting)
> Overall evaluation/comparison
> Each area is evaluated, one software program against another, with my
> preference for each category listed by company name.
>
> GRAPHICS- Wilson
> Contrary to what Acespade claims on their web site, their graphics are
> table view is even farther ahead, presentation-wise. The main table,
> in-game views and associated graphics reminds me of the early Windows
> some of the situations I ran into during initial play, I really think
> Pro 2002's advice is generally unreasonable, if not useless. I found
> the Acespade's calculations and advice to make so little sense (to the
> point where I couldn't figure out why it was doing what it was doing),
> that I don't think that I can ever bring myself to trust it or to use
> it as a basis for learning.
> While Acespade's marketing makes claims such as ".. delivers
> the best decision in various situations. This can not be achieved by
> software from other providers which uses only predefined decision
> tables..," I don't see how this "best decision" can be safely
> assumed, based on what I've experienced in a short time. While the
> company may claim that "...Acespade's poker software has made novice
> poker players who used to be beaten at low-limit poker tables become
> expert players even at high-limit poker tables.", I highly doubt that
> ANYONE could become even an expert LOW limit player by following this
> software's advice.
>
> PRICING (at the time of this March 2002 review)
> Wilson- Individual games are listed at $90. Volume purchase discounts
> may be available. Upgrades are $19 plus S+H, with upgrades coming
> every year or so in my experience, depending on the game.
>
> Acespade- Individual games are listed at $70, with certain two-game
> packages priced at $110.
> Upgrades- Supposedly runs $25 plus S+H. Sales person I talked to
> said that upgrades are released every one to three years.
>
Easy E
- involves a lot of money invested in buying his products over the
last few years. I currently own the latest version of everything he
has.
- sending suggestions to Bob Wilson about the software as I've run
into things
- being a big fan and defender of the software (as you may have seen
with some of my postings in the past and recently)
... but I am not an employee.. tho maybe I SHOULD charge him!
Anyway, some things that are not in the review of Turbo Hold Em above-
1) The 4.0 shipment that I received had a 40-page User's Manual,
basically replicates help in booklet form.
2) You can buy Mike Gilbert's manual on setting up profiles and
testing- walks through specific examples on creating profiles, running
tests AND give expected results for those examples- very helpful in
learning how to use these functions!!
3) Turbo Hold'Em lets you set up all computer players and allows you
to watch them play (face up or face down). The nice thing is, you can
replay the hands as in regular play... but you can also switch
settings in the middle, before replaying the hand, so you can do
different things!!
Other sources of reviews of both software games:
Izmut's walkthrough from 1999 of Acespade, which I had posted earlier
(if Garcia is gonna move his postings around, I will too)
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Acespade+group:rec.gambling.poker&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&selm=GvdI3.408%244j1.70592%40news.siol.net&rnum=2
I found this wilson link doing a search for this posting- searched on
"Software Review- Wilson". Various poker writers have reviewed
Wilson's games over the years, Bob's posted links on his site:
http://www.wilsonsw.com/review.html
Other links, with other reviews, were also in that search result..
if anyone is interested in browsing.
Easy E
You can see the spamming that occurred... which is evidently still
occurring.
Gpyu
Hold'em. I hope he is not connected to Wilson in any way. But his criticism of
Acespade is plain wrong. The followings are the explainations of why his
criticism is wrong.
[Example 1]:
One problem with the Advice given by the Hint button is that the
action values can contradict what the Advisor suggests. Again, using
the Qc 9c example from Normal/Case play above, I would see a positive
or neutral Call dollar value, but a clearly negative, by whole
dollars, Raise $$ value…. and yet the Advisor would tell me to raise
anyway, even though my hand only have a 30% chance or so of winning.
This makes very little sense and would be very confusing to
new players. They may not get the nuance of taking an action that may
have the worst of it in order to increase their chances of winning…
much less recommending to players that they should take negative
expectation actions as a rule…
[Explain]: Experienced player will raise with this hand sometime for many
reasons such as stealing the blinds, to carry on some good plays on the flop
and after.
[Example 2]:
The following are all with the same $3/6 game that I was using
above. Most of the examples were generated with the following table
lineup, in order by seat. I didn't adjust any of the Player settings
that defaulted as listed below:
1. Solid Player- 63% aggressive all streets… 58% tight pre-flop, 55%
on all other streets
2. NoPlayer (i.e. empty seat)
3. Human Player- incredibly expert player, couldn't pin down his
playing style (!)
4. Weak Player- 45% aggressive all streets… 63% tight pre-flop, 58%
on all other streets
5. Tight Player- 63% aggressive all streets… 63% tight pre-flop, 58%
on all other streets
6. Unknown player, replaced every 75 minutes
7. Solid player
8. PlayerType1- set to Solid Player characteristics
9. Weak
10. Caller- 27% aggressive pre-flop, 30% after…40% tight preflop, 32%
after
First example- An Unknown player UTG raised, everyone folds to me
on the button. I re-raise to get the blinds out with my Ah 8d.
Advisor squawks, telling me to fold because remaining in the hand has
negative expectations. Strangely, while my win/loss are at 23/75%,
the UTG player with the #1 strength hand is only 30%/68%. Neither of
the blinds are ranked because neither has acted yet, I guess.
I re-raise anyway, driving out the blinds. Flop comes JQT
rainbow, giving me a two-direction straight draw. UTG checks, Advisor
says to Bet (Check is $10.4, Raise is $10.50) because " I have the
best hand (ed. Note- how do I know that?) and I don't want to give a
free card" .. which should be what I DO mainly want here, unless
there's some chance that the UTG will fold to my semi-bluff. I am
rated to win 50%, Lose 46%… while UTG is the reverse.
I check, seeing a nice, if dangerous 9s on the turn- meaning
that Kx and AK are possible straights, plus a flush draw in spades now
exists to beat my made straight. UTG bets. Advisor says raise with
my best hand, as a 76% winner. I raise, UTG re-raises.
Now, even though I'm still ranked at 76% win, and raising is
worth $3.60 more of the pot expectation than calling, the Advisor
states that "I should have raised back based on the previous hand
readings, but to be cautious, I'll just call in case I misread my
opponent's hand." I check the opponent's hand- he has Ad Td. So,
the win/loss percentages are wrong- I can't lose 16% of the time, I'm
a lock. I have the only straight. If the K comes, I split the pot.
So I cap it, the UTG instantly calls. The pot is $67.00.
The river is the Qs, putting a royal flush, quads and multiple
full houses on board. The Unknown player bets into me- maybe he's an
aggressive player, or thinks I'll fold to one bet after capping on the
turn?
At this point, once again the hand strength calculations and
advice contradict one another. My strength, while 1st, is a win/loss
of 58/29% (what is the other 13%- a floor ruling splitting the pot?),
while UTG is 29/58%. Advisor says "I'll raise because I have the best
hand…" where calling is priced at +$45.10 and Raise is $46.90 (a gain
of only $1.80 with a lock hand? I get the $73 pot if he folds and
extra $6 if he calls..)
Also, the possible hands at this point for my opponent,
according to the Advisor- 42% straight or better, 2% top two pair,
53% second pair lower than Queens and Jacks, and 1% Overcard (with 2%
a crack-smoking pure bluffer, I guess). My re-raise results in a
$91.00 pot….
[Explain]: Acespade's advise is right on each street in this example.
Before the flop: you should fold Ah 8d after the UTG player raised.
On the flop JQT rainbow: UTG checks, Advisor says to Bet is correct. Your
checking is not bad too.
The Turn card is 9s: UTG bets. Advisor says raise is correct because unless UTG
slowplayed the Flop with AK, you have the best hand. UTG reraised and you
should just call. Here you peeked UTG's card and know you have the best hand,
but the computer does not peek and does not know what cards UTG has and it
makes decisions on what possible hands UTG has.
The River card is Qs: UTG bets, maybe he has the best hand and maybe he is
bluffing. If you make more thinking, it is clear that UTG is not likely to have
quad or full house because if he has triple or two pairs on the flop he would
not checked the dangerous flop after you called his raise before the flop. And
he is not very likely to have Ace high straight bacause with your potential of
full house he would not bet the river. So he is likely bluffing here and
Acespade's advise of raising is correct.
Once again, please be reminded that the computer advisor does not peek and does
not know what hand the other player has. Many of Mr. Garcia's criticisms as in
the following examples are based on the wrong assumption that the opponents'
hand are known.
[Example 3]:
Here's a detailed example with various replays: The fourth hand
in the Normal Play series that I'm in, with 9 players at the table,
four players fold into my Ah 9h in late position. Folding is the
preferred play from the Advisor, at $0.00 cost, because calling is
ranked as -$2.00 and Raise at -$2.60. My win/loss is calculated at
23%/73%.
The hands I was facing at this point?
Weak player in cutoff: 3c 2 d
Tight player on Button: Kd 5h
Unknown player in SB: 8h Kc
Solid player in BB: 5d Jc
I raise. All hands fold. I collect $4.00 in blinds. Where's
my negative expectation? Everyone else's hands were crippled. Only
two hearts are accounted for as well…. ??
[Explain]: I play this hand in Acespade's Case-play mode and the computer
advise gave positive expectations on both calling and raising, and it advise to
raise with this hand. I hope Mr. Garcia did not make a mistake in this example.
Anyone who has Acespade's Texas Hold'em Pro 2002 can do a Case-play with this
hand and see what the advise is. The Case-play is a great tool to analyse a
paricular hand play. I often use it to exam who is right on the hand
discussions in RGP, 2 + 2 forum, Card Player and Poker Digest.
[Example 4]:
hands are 6% two pair, 1% top pair, 24% other pair, 29% flush draw…
and 40% nothing.
I check, the BB bets. My Strength is still 1st, but my win/loss drops
to 85%/15%. Calling is worth $8.40, Raise is almost worth the current
$11 pot. Advisor says "I'll raise because I have the best hand and
raising gives me the highest expectation" (duhhh!). BB hand is 13%
likely to be two pair, 2% to be top or overpair, 45% to be a lower
pair and 19% to be an overcard bluff… with only a 21% chance of a pure
bluff. I raise and the BB calls with his pair of threes, giving me a
$27 pot and $12 profit.
I play it again and bet the river this time. BB calls and I profit $8
on a $17 pot.
[Explain]: The advise of calling with Qd 5c in SB against BB is correct, and
your choice of raising to steal is correct too. Folding is not bad too because
the expectation of calling is close to 0.
Flop cards Jc 10c 5d: You have one pair against checked BB, advise of betting
is correct. Your checking is little bit too weak.
Turn card 9d: Mr. Garcia did not mention what the computer advise here, but
both players checked.
River card 3d: Here is my analysis, if BB has flush draw on the Turn, he would
have bet after I bet on the Flop then check on the Turn. And BB is not likely
to have a pair high than 5's otherwise he will bet on the Turn too. BB is very
likely bluffing after SB checked. So Acespade's advise of raisng is correct.
[Example 5]:
Here's an example from Watch play, where the computer is fully
in control of the play. 4 players just call, including the 2 blinds.
BB has 53 off. Flop comes A45 off. Unknown SB bets, BB calls.
Other two players fold. Turn card is A rainbow (no flush possible).
SB bets.
BB, who supposedly is a Solid player, calls a $6 bet when pot is
only $22. I calculate pot odds at 3.67 to 1, where the BB's draws are
now limited AT BEST to four 3's at 11.5-1, maybe trip 5's at 23-1.
Even the combined drawing odds only gives the BB about a 7.67-1 chance
AT BEST of catching a winning river card, while ignoring full houses
and possible higher straights (it IS the SB, where a 76 suited could
be possible, if doubtful). This is a CLEAR fold based just on current
pot odds. Implied odds aren't much better; either 4.66-1 (SB calls a
river bet with a losing hand) or 5.67-1 (SB bets and calls a raise)
when considering whether to put in this $6 call on the turn.
Regardless, both odds are still lower than catching one of 6 cards in
a perfect, non-counterfeited situation; therefore, once again, BB
should have folded.
Pot now $28. River card is a Jack. SB bets, BB calls (? Does he
think that the SB, which is a Solid player as it turns out, is a
maniac bluffer?) with his weak two pair, Aces and fives. SB's trip
Aces wins
[Explain]: No raise before the flop. BB has 53 offsuit.
Flop cards A45 rainbow: SB bets, BB'call is correct.
Turn card A rainbow: SB bet, BB'call is correct. Here Mr. Garcia uses pot odds
to criticise BB's calling. But he does not know the limitation of using pot
odds to make a decision in poker. The limitation is that pot odds ingnore what
possible hands the other players have. That is why Acespade software use
expectation value which considers all factors. SB is very likely having a hand
no better than a pair of 4 and bluffing here. Many kinds of players except
calling stations do this kind of move.
River card Jack: SB bets, BB'call is a tough decision. It is a very close
decision between calling and folding because the pot is big now and SB may
still bluffing.
[Example 6]:
Here's a series that I ran into during Compete Play: After
playing 6 hands, all fold to Unknown Player in seat 6, who raises.
Everyone else folds to me in BB with 8d6d in seat 3. Advice says to
call. Expectation was calculated at +$0.40 for calling, -$0.90 for
raising and $0.00 for folding. The advice, quoted exactly, said "I'll
call because I do not have the best hand and calling gives me the
highest expectation." However, my hand had a calculated Win value
of 29% and Loss of 70%…. which makes sense (if correct percentages),
since the raiser had QdQh !!! I'm pretty sure I'm more than a 3.3-1
dog here and the pot was only $9.90 at the time.
I call because the software said so- that's the ONLY way I would
have called a single player who raised in early position, ESPECIALLY
when I don't know what type of player I'm against. Flop comes 7dAhKs.
Advice is to check , with a Win/Loss of 13%/83% and a -$2.50 Bet
expectation (is that all the Advisor thinks I'll lose with this bet in
a 3-6 game?). QQ bets, advice is to fold. Loss/Win is now 12%/86%,
as if the system is 2% more convinced than before that this hand is a
loser. I fold.
[Explain]: Before the flop: BB with 8d6d calling a raise after all others fold
is correct. Here again Mr. Garcia peeks and knows the other player has QQ and
suggests folding. But the computer advisor, as in a real life, does not peek
and does not know the other player has QQ in his hole cards.
Flop cards 7dAhKs: The Pre-flop raiser bets, BB's folding is correct.
[Conclusion]: Acespade software's advise in not only correct, it is quite smart
in many cases.
Thank all RGP readers for your time and thank Mr. Garcia for your review.
GPYU
SGarcia
As you have forced me defend my “plain wrong” criticism, I have done
so below. Each of my REBUTTAL comments are sectioned off. I have
included all of the original material so that it will be easier for
others to follow our back and forth.
********
Recently Mr. Garcia wrote a software review on Acespade vs. Wilson
Texas
Hold'em. I hope he is not connected to Wilson in any way. But his
criticism of
Acespade is plain wrong. The followings are the explainations of why
his
criticism is wrong.
------------------------------------
REBUTTAL: My connection with Wilson Software, much like my connection
with your company (Acespade Software) is that I purchased the
company's Hold'em software directly, with my own money. I was not
paid one dime for the purchases, nor for the review that I did.
I took on this work of several weeks because I was interested
in investigating the features and claims of each software game against
the other, as well as sharing the results with others on RGP who might
be deciding between the two software purchases. Unlike your
company’s claim that people are buying one package and then moving to
another (the survey of Wilson owners that your company refers to),
most people are only going to invest $70-90 in one game. That
investment should be in the best game.
__________________________________
[Example 1]:
One problem with the Advice given by the Hint button is that the
action values can contradict what the Advisor suggests. Again, using
the Qc 9c example from Normal/Case play above, I would see a positive
or neutral Call dollar value, but a clearly negative, by whole
dollars, Raise $$ value?. and yet the Advisor would tell me to raise
anyway, even though my hand only have a 30% chance or so of winning.
This makes very little sense and would be very confusing to
new players. They may not get the nuance of taking an action that may
have the worst of it in order to increase their chances of winning?
much less recommending to players that they should take negative
expectation actions as a rule?
[Explain]: Experienced player will raise with this hand sometime for
many
reasons such as stealing the blinds, to carry on some good plays on
the flop
and after.
------------------------------------
REBUTTAL #1- That statement doesn't apply in this situation, since
it was dealing with flop and turn play. Blind stealing is already
gone, and based on the values calculated by your software, there were
no "good" plays to be made by raising. Raising to increase your
chance of winning, by knocking out other players competing for the
pot, is a valid reason to raise with an inferior hand. When you are
facing one other player, that does not apply either.
In addition, the problem as I see it is two-fold. First, experienced
players, who will know enough about this situation to interpret the
advice properly, in the correct context according to your statement,
do not NEED this advice. Experienced, knowledgable players of the
caliber that you are implying are not going to use poker software for
advice.
The vast majority of players, in my opinion, are not of this
caliber of expertise. Therefore, given the information presented and
the lack of explanation, they risk being confused about what the
advice means and what they should learn from it. If it is not
presented as an alternate, risky strategy, but as the main strategy
one should follow in this situation, then it is presented improperly
in my opinion.
Secondly, the various information pieces that are presented to
the user are, in my mind, contradictory. For example, as I originally
stated in my full review (the excerpt is below) the value of the Raise
that was presented as I repeated the tests, with the same criteria,
kept changing in value. The Raise was also almost always inferior to
Call or Fold from a financial comparison (this is all based on the
calculations made by your software) and usually had a negative
expectation:
"... One problem that I noticed- the action dollar value calculations
can change on each replaying of the hand. I kept re-running a
scenario where I was UTG with Qc 9c and the only caller was the BB.
During the flop and turn, the BB would bet. On the flop, the
calculations changed from $0.40 for Call, -$0.60 for Raise to -$0.70
for Raise (seemed to alternate). On the turn, Call ranged from $2 to
$2.20, Raise from -$0.10 to $0.00 to +$0.10. I'm not sure how an
action on the turn could be calculated as a loss one minute and a gain
the next, when nothing has changed....
... Another problem I saw during the replaying of the hand above-
Raise was clearly financially inferior to calling, yet the Advice was
to raise the turn, whether Raise was a negative expectation or
not...."
When your software presents a positive vs. negative expectation
action choice, yet recommends the negative action every time, I have
to call into question either the original calculations or the
Advice... especially when a beginning player is supposed to use this
software to learn how to play better poker.
When a BB bets into an "under the gun" pre-flop caller twice,
there has to be a very strong reason to raise the betting player in
question... and part of that reason should be a perceived chance that
the BB is bluffing and will fold. If there is no chance of a fold,
then semi- or complete bluffing has no expected gain.
In addition, unless the BB is overly aggressive, he has to have
something when he bets into my hand on two streets. The BB has to
know that an UTG player who calls into the entire table pre-flop, not
knowing what the table might do- enough callers for a draw, possibly
face a raise- either has a very strong hand that they are slow-playing
or a decent hand to risk passing through the table.
Of course I never should have called with the hand in the first
place, as this hand is not good UTG unless I’m sure that the table is
passive and there will be little or no raising pre-flop. Your
software’s compounding of my pre-flop calling error, by advising me to
raise with it on later streets, is a costly mistake.
_____________________________
[Example 2]:
The following are all with the same $3/6 game that I was using
above. Most of the examples were generated with the following table
lineup, in order by seat. I didn't adjust any of the Player settings
that defaulted as listed below:
1. Solid Player- 63% aggressive all streets? 58% tight pre-flop,
55%
on all other streets
2. NoPlayer (i.e. empty seat)
3. Human Player- incredibly expert player, couldn't pin down his
playing style (!)
4. Weak Player- 45% aggressive all streets? 63% tight pre-flop, 58%
on all other streets
5. Tight Player- 63% aggressive all streets? 63% tight pre-flop,
58%
on all other streets
6. Unknown player, replaced every 75 minutes
7. Solid player
8. PlayerType1- set to Solid Player characteristics
9. Weak
10. Caller- 27% aggressive pre-flop, 30% after?40% tight preflop,
32%
after
First example- An Unknown player UTG raised, everyone folds to me
on the button. I re-raise to get the blinds out with my Ah 8d.
Advisor squawks, telling me to fold because remaining in the hand has
negative expectations. Strangely, while my win/loss are at 23/75%,
the UTG player with the #1 strength hand is only 30%/68%. Neither of
the blinds are ranked because neither has acted yet, I guess.
I re-raise anyway, driving out the blinds. Flop comes JQT
rainbow, giving me a two-direction straight draw. UTG checks, Advisor
says to Bet (Check is $10.4, Raise is $10.50) because " I have the
best hand (ed. Note- how do I know that?) and I don't want to give a
free card" .. which should be what I DO mainly want here, unless
there's some chance that the UTG will fold to my semi-bluff. I am
rated to win 50%, Lose 46%? while UTG is the reverse.
I check, seeing a nice, if dangerous 9s on the turn- meaning
that Kx and AK are possible straights, plus a flush draw in spades now
exists to beat my made straight. UTG bets. Advisor says raise with
my best hand, as a 76% winner. I raise, UTG re-raises.
Now, even though I'm still ranked at 76% win, and raising is
worth $3.60 more of the pot expectation than calling, the Advisor
states that "I should have raised back based on the previous hand
readings, but to be cautious, I'll just call in case I misread my
opponent's hand." I check the opponent's hand- he has Ad Td. So,
the win/loss percentages are wrong- I can't lose 16% of the time, I'm
a lock. I have the only straight. If the K comes, I split the pot.
So I cap it, the UTG instantly calls. The pot is $67.00.
The river is the Qs, putting a royal flush, quads and multiple
full houses on board. The Unknown player bets into me- maybe he's an
aggressive player, or thinks I'll fold to one bet after capping on the
turn?
At this point, once again the hand strength calculations and
advice contradict one another. My strength, while 1st, is a win/loss
of 58/29% (what is the other 13%- a floor ruling splitting the pot?),
while UTG is 29/58%. Advisor says "I'll raise because I have the best
hand?" where calling is priced at +$45.10 and Raise is $46.90 (a gain
of only $1.80 with a lock hand? I get the $73 pot if he folds and
extra $6 if he calls..)
Also, the possible hands at this point for my opponent,
according to the Advisor- 42% straight or better, 2% top two pair,
53% second pair lower than Queens and Jacks, and 1% Overcard (with 2%
a crack-smoking pure bluffer, I guess). My re-raise results in a
$91.00 pot?.
[Explain]: Acespade's advise is right on each street in this example.
Before the flop: you should fold Ah 8d after the UTG player raised.
On the flop JQT rainbow: UTG checks, Advisor says to Bet is correct.
Your
checking is not bad too.
The Turn card is 9s: UTG bets. Advisor says raise is correct because
unless UTG
slowplayed the Flop with AK, you have the best hand. UTG reraised and
you
should just call. Here you peeked UTG's card and know you have the
best hand,
but the computer does not peek and does not know what cards UTG has
and it
makes decisions on what possible hands UTG has.
The River card is Qs: UTG bets, maybe he has the best hand and maybe
he is
bluffing. If you make more analysis, it is clear that UTG is not
likely to have
quad or full house because if he has triple or two pairs on the flop
he would
not checked the dangerous flop after you called his raise before the
flop. And
he is not very likely to have Ace high straight bacause with your
potential of
full house he would not bet the river. So he is likely bluffing here
and
Acespade's advise of raising is correct.
Once again, please be reminded that the computer advisor does not peek
and does
not know what hand the other player has. Many of Mr. Garcia's
criticisms as in
the following examples are based on the wrong assumption that the
opponents'
hand are known.
------------------------------------
REBUTTAL #2- Of course I agree that the A8off should have folded to
the raise preflop. I wanted to see what the software would recommend
afterwards, plus I decided that to play the hand was either raise or
fold. In addition, the software told me that the UTG's hand has only
a 7% lead on me, as far as win percentage, so I felt that I could
gamble.
I noted the Advisor's protest of my pre-flop raise
because that advice was correct, in my opinion and I wanted to be
fair.
I disagree that all of the other streets’ Advice is correct,
however:
FLOP- I disagree with the flop advice for several reasons.
First, I have a draw to the nut high straight (Ace-high), but the odds
of it are low enough that I want the free draw. The other, low-end
straight risks running into the King. Second, if I should have folded
to their raise prior to the draw, with the implication that their hand
is strong, then why wouldn't I fear the higher possibility of a
check-raise than a completely bust hand? This tightly-grouped, highly
coordinated flop fits too well with the hands that the early raiser
should have here. Third, without the straight draws, I have almost
nothing to catch. An Ace or 8 just costs me a lot of money,
presumably. Fourth, anyone who raises pre-flop from an early
position, then checks the flop, should expect a "will you fold?" bet
on the cheap street. I assume that only a super-tight player would
fold post-flop after checking, for only one bet. Fifth, the stated
win/loss percentages only had me slightly ahead- too small an edge to
push with a bet, in my opinion. Checking for free is clearly superior
here, again in my opinion.
All of this, by the way, is based on NOT knowing
that the UTG held ATsuited
The other problem with the software that I have is the play of
the other opponents. To learn from software that is supposed to be an
advisory/development tool, the opponents should have some rational
behaviour also (unless you deliberately choose players who don't).
Therefore, unless the Unknown player was a hyper-maniac or a
super-tight player, check-raising would be my assumed play for the UTG
player, not anything else. I didn't replay the hand at the time to
see if they would raise my flop bet.
TURN- Your 'Turn= Raise' statement about best hand is incorrect, in
that any King for UTG gives me the worse straight, and a Ks 9s almost
locks me out... As 8s is a freeroll for UTG over my no-flush straight,
As J/T/Qs is not far behind for the flush draw and tying straight
draw. Limiting your advice to only AK here is a compounding error, to
me. All of those other hands could slow-play the flop...with some
risk, of course. All of these hands could be raised pre-flop by an
aggressive player, and this player was Unknown, so to make the
assumption that the UTG either has AK or is losing is a poor analysis,
in my opinion.
And, if as you claim the software Advice is not peeking at
the cards, how does it determine that the hand of a pre-flop raiser
UTG, who re-raised me on the turn, still gives me a 76% chance to win
with my ‘ignorant end’ straight and two-flush on board? Is the Advice
independent of the statistics being displayed, statistics that I
thought were presented in order for me to make a better decision? Are
the statistics themselves based on some unknown concept, or just
position, or just bettor action? …. Since you evidently believe that
pot odd calculations are not the preferred method of determining what
actions the Advisor should recommend (as you imply in Example #5
below), how exactly are these values calculated? I raised that
question several times through examples in my full review…
As I stated in my full review, I could never figure out if the
Advice and the statistics WERE linked in some way, or were completely
independent (which would be contradictory and confusing). I also
couldn’t be sure whether the Advice and stats were given ‘blind’,
without knowing all of the hands as they existed, or not (making the
statistics seem more voodoo-esque in their calculations.
RIVER- Again, unless the UTG is a complete maniac, his calculations
should take in the total pot dollars that are out there, as well as
the fact that I capped the turn, in considering whether a pure bluff
will work. Two middle pair can’t be strong enough to bet here,
therefore his hand is mostly a bluff.
And if the Advice isn’t peeking at the cards, how does it know that
I have the best hand? It said I did, and I did actually have the best
hand. The betting action certainly wouldn’t indicate that I have the
best hand with that degree of certainty, with all of the possible
higher hands (flush, full, quads) out there on the board and the other
player’s raising patterns.
I made some of the obviously stupid statements about the dollar
value of the calculations to point out the fact that the stats were
not being calculated on obvious, concrete values, nor on actual hand
vs. hand calculations. I still don’t know what these numbers are
based on or why this data is even presented, if they are not based on
real values.
CONCLUSION- I think that most of the advice given WAS wrong, if your
software wasn’t checking the hands that were held- which is what the
Advisor should be doing (advice based on probabilities, not
certainties by checking hands). Evidently a lot of the information
that is presented in Advice should be ignored because it is
contradictory and confusing. I’m not sure whether to follow the
Advisor’s comments, or the calculated stats that are displayed, or
some combination of the two, or something else.
______________________
[Example 3]:
Here's a detailed example with various replays: The fourth hand
in the Normal Play series that I'm in, with 9 players at the table,
four players fold into my Ah 9h in late position. Folding is the
preferred play from the Advisor, at $0.00 cost, because calling is
ranked as -$2.00 and Raise at -$2.60. My win/loss is calculated at
23%/73%.
The hands I was facing at this point?
Weak player in cutoff: 3c 2 d
Tight player on Button: Kd 5h
Unknown player in SB: 8h Kc
Solid player in BB: 5d Jc
I raise. All hands fold. I collect $4.00 in blinds. Where's
my negative expectation? Everyone else's hands were crippled. Only
two hearts are accounted for as well?. ??
[Explain]: I play this hand in Acespade's Case-play mode and the
computer
advise gave positive expectations on both calling and raising, and it
advise to
raise with this hand. I hope Mr. Garcia did not make a mistake in this
example.
Anyone who has Acespade's Texas Hold'em Pro 2002 can do a Case-play
with this
hand and see what the advise is. The Case-play is a great tool to
analyse a
paricular hand play. I often use it to exam who is right on the hand
discussions in RGP, 2 + 2 forum, Card Player and Poker Digest.
------------------------------------
REBUTTAL #3- The hand and Advice pre-flop occurred as I described.
I don’t know what the folded hands were in the seats before me. If
your play of this hand in Case Play gave Raise, then Call
recommendations, they contradict the advice of the Regular Play game
at the time.
Recreating the hand in Case Play myself resulted in the following:
all other hands are unknown. Fold first four. My hand- Ranked 1st,
Call 0.20, Raise 0.40, win/loss 23%/75%.
I could not reproduce what I originally saw in Normal Play by using
Case Play, even if I seeded the folding hands with Aces and hearts.
So, I can't explain what I saw originally, nor can I recreate it.
_______________________________
hands are 6% two pair, 1% top pair, 24% other pair, 29% flush draw?
and 40% nothing.
I check, the BB bets. My Strength is still 1st, but my win/loss drops
to 85%/15%. Calling is worth $8.40, Raise is almost worth the current
$11 pot. Advisor says "I'll raise because I have the best hand and
raising gives me the highest expectation" (duhhh!). BB hand is 13%
likely to be two pair, 2% to be top or overpair, 45% to be a lower
pair and 19% to be an overcard bluff? with only a 21% chance of a pure
bluff. I raise and the BB calls with his pair of threes, giving me a
$27 pot and $12 profit.
I play it again and bet the river this time. BB calls and I profit $8
on a $17 pot.
[Explain]: The advise of calling with Qd 5c in SB against BB is
correct, and
your choice of raising to steal is correct too. Folding is not bad too
because
the expectation of calling is close to 0.
Flop cards Jc 10c 5d: You have one pair against checked BB, advise of
betting
is correct. Your checking is little bit too weak.
Turn card 9d: Mr. Garcia did not mention what the computer advise
here, but
both players checked.
River card 3d: Here is my analysis, if BB has flush draw on the Turn,
he would
have bet after I bet on the Flop then check on the Turn. And BB is not
likely
to have a pair high than 5's otherwise he will bet on the Turn too. BB
is very
likely bluffing after SB checked. So Acespade's advise of raisng is
correct.
------------------------------------
REBUTTAL #4
PRE-FLOP: This hand was a good example of why I started to distrust
the Advice, as well as the implied accuracy of statistics such as
Win/Loss percentages. If you believe that my steal raise, against a
random BB hand, is correct, then why was Raise initially calculated as
such a large loss, while Calling was slightly positive? And why
didn’t folding reflect my $1 blind loss? I understand that the money
is already in the pot and isn’t mine to get back, but $0.00 for every
Fold makes it seem like a better play than it often is.
Ran this in Case Play, repeated some of the results. Then I switched
the BB hand, gave him Qh 10d, with random unknown cards to everyone
else. The Advice gave the same statistics for calling and raising,
and also for hand strength and win/loss. On the flop, the BB now has a
pair of 10’s, I have a pair of 5’s with a runner-runner flush
possible. So, my hand is behind…. Yet strength is still 1st
(63/35%), Check is $3.90, Bet still $6. So, evidently the hand
strength and winning possibility calculations are based on my hand
against random hands… which is confusing when I can see the hands in
front of me, and I’m clearly worse (in this case) or better (in the
original case).
Also, why did the Advisor decide that my hand wasn’t the best
initially? Since it evidently wasn’t actually looking at my hand and
the BB’s hand, was it basing the calculation solely on the 168
remaining possible hand combinations?
FLOP- Maybe I was a little weak with not betting my bottom pair,
overcard kicker.. but the Q makes a strong straight and higher two
pair possible, and the Qc is a killer flush, so my kicker is much
worse than it seems. Plus, the BB did call my pre-flop raise, so they
should have something. Besides, my play wasn’t as weak as the Weak
player’s calling a preflop raise with 63off…
TURN- I didn’t specifically state it, but since the Advisor often
recommends the supposedly highest EV calculation, I’m pretty sure the
Advisor recommended betting again. When I checked, the BB checked, as
I stated above, and we both saw the river card for free.
RIVER- My analysis is different- a Weak player with 45%
aggressiveness on all streets may not bet into me with the rivered
bottom pair, even if I did check. The only hand that the BB beats is
a pure bluff or a worse 3x hand with that hand. Therefore, I can’t
assume that he waited for a river 3 as his only strength. Assuming a
weak player is going to bet a flush draw on the turn is also a
stretch, in my mind. Even so, the runner-runner flush is suspect, as
you stated. However, for me to raise the bettor with my second lowest
pair, when a 3-flush, 3-straight and 3 overcards to my pair are on
board seems foolhardy.
And how did the Advisor determine that I should raise because I
have the best hand? The BB bet into my triple-check…. that means that
I MUST have the best hand without question? I don’t think so.
My thinking is that the bettor lucked into 2 pair….. but then
again, if I had known that he’d call a pre-flop raise with as weak a
hand as 63off, then he could have almost anything.
All in all, the Advice and calculations for the actions,
combined with hand strength and win/loss calculations, didn’t seem to
jibe on a regular basis.
____________________________
------------------------------------
REBUTTAL #5
I can accept the flop call, but the turn call starts becoming
dangerous. Only the 2’s are a sure winner. Catch my full house
(fives full) is a risky proposition also. My two pair is also weak-
iIs the SB betting middle pair with a worse kicker than a 4, or low
pair? Doubtful, since he put in 2/3’s of a bet pre-flop. Is Ax a
likely hand for the SB in a low-limit game? I would think so. What
hands does my 53off beat at this point of the Turn? Only 54, 52, 4x
(excluding the Ace and 4 as the second card), 33, 22 and two overcards
(which have slight redraw possibilities) that are overplayed. That is
an incredibly small range of hands that I can play against, especially
with the board paired.
I am even more concerned that your comment about pot odds, if
your software is downgrading or ignoring them, indicates a FUNDAMENTAL
flaw in your Advice logic. The point of poker is not to win hands,
it is to win money. If you constantly draw at longshots, that can a)
split the hand if hit by both players b) lose anyway to a river card
full house… and you are not very close to the correct pot odds
(implied, effective and immediate) to financially justify the draws,
you are asking to lose a lot of money in the long run. That is NOT a
positive expectation value situation, if that is what your software
supposedly revolves around.
And while you are commenting about the “limitation” of pot odds
in determining hands, should we also discuss what seems to be your
software’s ignorance of the meaning of betting action, combined with
hand potential? What is the 53off thinking, in your mind? I really
don’t interpret two rounds of betting into a caller, with a paired
board of Aces, as a player betting a bottom pair.
And what about the river bet, with a third overcard to that
bottom pair? Do your supposedly Solid computer players regularly bet
lowest board pair all the way through, regardless of the board,
especially when the pot is large and they should assume because of pot
size that they will be called? Are you saying that they are
programmed to carry a bluff all the way through past the point of no
return? Or that the computer players are routinely assuming that they
are facing bluffing only, through three streets, on a regular basis?
You’re going to have to come up with a much better argument to
defend ignoring pot odds on longshot, gutshot straight draws with a
paired board and constant betting….as well as the Turn and River
calling Advice.
___________________________________
[Example 6]:
Here's a series that I ran into during Compete Play: After
playing 6 hands, all fold to Unknown Player in seat 6, who raises.
Everyone else folds to me in BB with 8d6d in seat 3. Advice says to
call. Expectation was calculated at +$0.40 for calling, -$0.90 for
raising and $0.00 for folding. The advice, quoted exactly, said "I'll
call because I do not have the best hand and calling gives me the
highest expectation." However, my hand had a calculated Win value
of 29% and Loss of 70%?. which makes sense (if correct percentages),
since the raiser had QdQh !!! I'm pretty sure I'm more than a 3.3-1
dog here and the pot was only $9.90 at the time.
I call because the software said so- that's the ONLY way I would
have called a single player who raised in early position, ESPECIALLY
when I don't know what type of player I'm against. Flop comes 7dAhKs.
Advice is to check , with a Win/Loss of 13%/83% and a -$2.50 Bet
expectation (is that all the Advisor thinks I'll lose with this bet in
a 3-6 game?). QQ bets, advice is to fold. Loss/Win is now 12%/86%,
as if the system is 2% more convinced than before that this hand is a
loser. I fold.
[Explain]: Before the flop: BB with 8d6d calling a raise after all
others fold
is correct. Here again Mr. Garcia peeks and knows the other player has
QQ and
suggests folding. But the computer advisor, as in a real life, does
not peek
and does not know the other player has QQ in his hole cards.
Flop cards 7dAhKs: The Pre-flop raiser bets, BB's folding is correct.
REBUTTAL #6- I strongly disagree that the Advice to call a lone early
raiser from the BB is correct with a low 1-gap suited hand. The
player who raised 3 seats to my left (I'm always seat #3, remember) is
in early position and is raising into 6 other players without knowing
what they'll do. That implies a strong hand. There is no one left in
the hand to get implied odds from in case I catch a good flop for my
86s. In addition, there aren't many flops that I will either a) like
or b) make much money from, either because my flush is medium and I'll
be afraid to play it strongly, or trips will come and the other player
will be afraid to play their hand strongly when I become aggressive.
Therefore, my post-flop prospects were bleak even without considering
the raise.
If your Advice tells me that I only have a 29% chance of beating
an early raiser, and also tells me that I don't have the best hand (if
the Advice is not peeking, what is this statement based on- the raise
in and of itself?), why would Advice tell me to call? And how can I
win less than one out of 3 times, with my limited money-making moves
post-flop, and have a positive calling expectation (your
calculations)? I will be bet off of this hand much more than 70% of
the time with the position problem.
THAT is why I would have folded this hand, not because I knew
that the raiser had a big pair. I only peeked to justify what I saw
as incorrect advice- and I also questioned the dollar expectation
calculations that were made in that situation.
Obviously the flop fold was correct- at least the advice
didn’t compound the initial pre-flop error this time. I also didn’t
understand why my hand was any weaker because the raiser bet the flop.
If the raiser hadn’t bet, would my hand value/win percentage go up?
I reran this hand in Case Play, giving random hands to all but seat
6 and myself. When seat 6 raises and all fold to me, Calling is only
$0.10, Raise -$1.10. 29% win chance. Because I wasn’t raking dimes
any more, the pot at this point was $9.00, not $9.90. Interesting
how, when the pot is smaller, the Raise calculation got worse…The flop
gave me only a $0.50 loss on Bet….a $0.90 pot difference made me lose
$2 less on Betting than I did before?
I fold and replay- Now the preflop Call is up to $0.20, Raise
-$1.10, only have a 69% instead of 70% loss rate… On the flop, I’m
down to a $0.20 loss on betting (I gained 30 cents!), still 13%/82%
win-loss. I check as recommended, make the Queens bet, Advisor says
fold with 12% win chance. Fold and replay.
On the flop, I’m back up to $0.40 loss amount, 84% chance of
losing. Call for flop, back up to $0.50 loss, now have an 85% chance
of losing (still 13% win)
I reopen Case Play, recreate the hand and replay it. On the
flop, I switch the Kc for the Ks, making the flop 7d Ah Kc. This
should result in no change as to either hand’s original strength or
chances, yet my Bet loss is now -$0.60 on the flop.
Now I bet as a bluff, make the Queens call. I make the Jd come
on the turn. My strength is 2nd, 19% win, check is +$3.40, Bet is
-$0.70, yet it suggests that I steal. I make the Queens raise me.
Calling is $1.20, Reraise is -$2.60, Advisor says call with 2nd
strength hand. I make the river 8s, so board is 7d Ah Kc Jd 8s. I
check, Queens bet, I have a 100% loss chance, I fold. Playing with
other bet/check/call/raise options during replay, I could sometime get
an 18% chance of winning (mostly by making Queens check-call the flop,
bet the turn and river, as if it was bluffing)
So, the calculations seem a little too fluid to me for me to be
comfortable with their accuracy, without doing the mathematical
analysis to verify the calculations.
Also, I ran this scenario in Case Play, setting different
players in place of the Unknown Player (to see the various effects
when the Unknown player was a specific type). I would then raise the
Queens preflop as before, check the Advisor. Here were my results:
Player Advice
AGGRESSIVE Call: $0.20 Call, -$1.00 Raise, 29% win
LOOSE Call: $0.20 Call, -$1.00 Raise, 29%
win
SOLID Call: $0.10 Call, -$1.20 Raise, 29% win
WEAK Fold: $0.00 Call, -$1.90 Raise, 28%
win
CALLER Fold: -$0.40 Call, -$1.80 Raise, 25% win
chance
Evidently the Advice is adjusting somewhat to what type of player
you are facing. I assume that is based on the expected range of hands
they may be playing, which is a good thing. However, I still question
several things- first, why is a Caller rated to have a stronger
raising hand than a Weak player that raises? Why is a Solid player’s
raise considered not much more of a risk than a Loose or Aggressive
player? Is it simply because of the default percentages?
Second, the Advice doesn’t seem to take into consideration
the real-game costs involved in defending my blind against the
Agg/Loose/Solid players (those dreaded pot odds again), since it
suggests calling all of them but folding against the Caller and Weak
players. I would think that the first three types of players,
which I should expect to put in a much greater ratio of bets and
raises throughout the hand than the two less aggressive players, are
going to cost me a lot more money to defend my 86s in the BB. This
therefore reduces my effective pot odds considerably and makes a call
a much more risky (i.e costly) proposition.
If the software is going to make such a distinction between types
of players raising in early position, it should also consider the
ramifications of that type of player(s) expected play throughout the
hand.
_______________________
[Conclusion]: Acespade software's advise in not only correct, it is
quite smart
in many cases.
Thank all RGP readers for your time and thank Mr. Garcia for your
review.
REBUTTAL CONCLUSION- Obviously I have issues with the intelligence
that you claim for your software. I do appreciate your explanations,
and hopefully your software will be upgraded to be clearer about why
Advice is given and what the different components (action advice, hand
strength calculations, win/loss percentages, etc) actually mean and
how they should be utilized effectively.
SGarcia