+1

I'll do my best here, but this might not be the most eloquent explanation ever:

HvH: If you run a sim in HvH, what is does is take your hand versus any hand from the range you've given your opponent. Lets say that you are looking at JT97ss versus AA**, in HvH, it will do thousands of sims where it takes your JT97 and deals a flop against random AA hands. So this means that the sim may include stuff like JT97 versus AAQQ on 77Q. Equally, you could have it on JT4 versus AA28. What this means is that you'll be given a wide variety of equities, all of which assume perfect knowledge of your opponent's hand. Therefore, if you were to run a sim assuming you call a preflop raise to play flops, you would find yourself making crazy hero-folds (such as trips on the 77Q board) which in reality you'd never make. Equally, you'll find yourself getting it in better on other boards than you would in reality against a range (as with the JT board on which villain never has a gutter).

HvR: This runs far fewer boards, but it does so against the entire range you have given your opponent. Therefore, you equities will be more central (ie it's harder to flop the lowest or highest ends of the spectrum), but will be a more realistic picture of postflop play given the information that will be available to you. The distinction may seem small, but with regards to doing valuable analytical work, using the HvR function will serve you better.

Hope that made sense.

What do you mean that HvR runs far fewer boards? It still has to run all possible flops, correct? Or even if we plug in the flop and graph turns I'm sure both HvH and  HvR would graph all turns ( approx 47 ). 

I'm still confused. 

You could be right but that makes little if any sense. Firstly, it doesn't tell you what single random hand it's using so the results would be useless.

Secondly, if what you said is true then why would you ever want to look at HvH graph especially for given turns? 

I do appreciate you trying to help, because i'm still clueless about the differences.

I went to go look at it and I do see that less turns or flops are ran for hand v range. Perhaps you cold give an example of when I would use HvH instead of HvR? 

I've never used the HvH for anything (that I can remember at this moment), but I imagine it's mainly designed for exactly what it says, hand versus hand simulations. If, for whatever reason, you were able to give villain a specific hand, this would be the purpose of this sim (I would think). Probably more useful in NL than PLO given the greater variety of hands in Omaha, but who knows. Honestly, I find HvR to be substantially more valuable for what I'm doing, but then that doesn't mean there won't be guys gaining a lot from using the HvH function.

K thanks for your help. I'll just stick to hvr. The one thing I find really odd is that in their example they use HvH of a small pair vs a 15% range. That's the part that seems odd/useless/incorrect application.

What do you mean that HvR runs far fewer boards? It still has to run all possible flops, correct? Or even if we plug in the flop and graph turns I'm sure both HvH and  HvR would graph all turns ( approx 47 ).

You are talking about an exhaustive method (run out all possible boards) and that is not what ppt does (not sure why it doesn't?) Afaik what ppt does is takes your hand vs a random hand in their range and runs it on a bunch of randomly selected flops.

(i know why its not used preflop, but when flop is known I believe exhaustive method is optimal)