Maybe I am a bit slow, but I have just found out that on ProPokerTools you can now set the top % of hands and exclude hands aswell which will allow you to weight your ranges much more effectively limiting sets (66** etc) being weighted much more heavily than wrap type hands(678*) by adding in the extra condition of making them in the top X% of Villians pre flop opening percentage.

For example this --> ProPokerTools Simulator Results - all-in race

is a random sim of stackoff ranges in 4bet pot on a T23 board but it has the added contingency of villains range being in the top 25% of hands and also excludes AA from villains range.

Not sure how well I have explained this, but anyone else think this is really cool??

Ya, it's been in the works for a while. Mr ProPokerTools has an interesting thread going on 2+2 about it...taking suggestions, receiving heaps of praise and marriage proposals, etc etc. MrBach or something is his name there. I haven't used the new stuff yet, but it's ONLY good.

__________________
These are the thoughts of a monkey

I still don't like the %s thing tho for a couple of reasons. Like, obviously it's good info and it helps, tho it's inaccurate and subjective.

1) My top 15% of hands aren't necessarily Villains 15% of hands. Some people much prefer pairs to rundowns when raising or 3Betting or whatever. With so many card combinations in plo, you can't really qualify somebody's top15% of hands like you can in holdem. Which kinda bleeds into...

2) Propokertools' listing of the best hands in order is bizarrely cheesy. The best, #1 hand in PLO is...AAKKds? AAJTds? Nope. AAJJds. Figure THAT one out. If that's the best hand, how accurate can the rest of the hands be? Obviously the top 15% of hands are going to be Good hands, but they're based on winning at showdown...not necessarily how good a hand is to 3Bet in a certain position.


So imo, because somebody 3Bets 10% of hands does not mean that you can plunk in your hand vs ppt's "top 10%" and see how you fare. Because the answer you get may not be accurate.

__________________
These are the thoughts of a monkey

This is definitely true, just have to be careful with it

That's what I'd think too. You read the known pros' posts on 2+2...it seems a lot of them haven't figured that part out yet.

__________________
These are the thoughts of a monkey

regardless its a major upgrade from the hugely pessimistic results based on a 88** type of range.

we all agree

__________________
These are the thoughts of a monkey