Editorial standards and test methodology
This page exists so any claim on this site can be checked. It covers how we score software, what each number means, who pays for the site, and what we do when we get something wrong.
How we score software
Every rated tool gets a score out of 5. The score is the weighted average of five criteria, applied in the same proportions to every product we review:
| Criterion | Weight | What we are judging |
|---|---|---|
| Strategic accuracy | 30% | Does the output match solver-derived strategy, and is the solve or model behind it sound? |
| Does it change how you play | 25% | Whether study in the tool transfers to faster, better decisions at the table. |
| Learning curve | 20% | Time from install to first useful insight, and how much prior theory the tool assumes. |
| Value for money | 15% | Price against what comparable tools charge for the same capability. |
| Reliability and support | 10% | Stability, update cadence, platform coverage, and responsiveness when something breaks. |
What the numbers mean
- 4.5 to 5.0: best in its category. We would pay for it ourselves.
- 4.0 to 4.4: strong, with a specific trade-off we name in the review.
- 3.0 to 3.9: works, but a competitor does the same job better or cheaper.
- Below 3.0: we do not recommend buying it at the current price.
Scores are per category, not across categories. A 4.5 equity calculator and a 4.5 solver are each excellent at their own job; the numbers do not mean the two tools are interchangeable.
How we test
- We use each tool for real study sessions on hands we actually played, not a feature checklist.
- Where a tool produces a strategy, we check its output against a solve of the same spot rather than taking the vendor's word for it.
- Pricing, tiers and platform support are taken from the vendor's own published pages and dated in the review, because they change.
- We say plainly when we have not tested something, and an untested feature is described as untested, not scored.
Sourcing
Factual claims about game theory, solver algorithms and poker AI cite the primary research directly, and the sources are listed at the foot of the article with working links. We do not cite "studies show" or "experts say" without naming the study or the expert. If we cannot find a real source for a claim, we cut the claim.
How we are funded
- Affiliate links. Some outbound links to vendors may earn us a commission. That funds the testing. It has no input into a score, and we do not accept payment to review, to review favourably, or to remove a review.
- Sponsored content. Anything paid for is labelled as sponsored at the top of the page, is never scored, and never appears in a ranking. See Partner with us.
Corrections
We correct errors in place and note the change. Material corrections, meaning anything that alters a score, a price or a factual claim, are marked with an updated date on the article. Email partners@solverscout.com if you find one, and include the URL and what is wrong.
Republishing and citation
You may quote this site, including in AI-generated answers, with attribution to Solver Scout and a link to the source URL. Our machine-readable content map lives at /llms.txt.