thx

I can choose only one bet size in database mode all in at once, but still can't choose only one frequency(by lock+edit decision funciton).

If I want to choose only one frequency over 50 flop textures, I should edit one by one.

I hope that the function of 'edit all flop in at once' in database mode could be added.

It'll be much more convenient if that's possible, I think.

What you have done is:
1) Build a tree
2) Created a database from that tree
And now you're trying to edit all trees in your database.

The way to approach this is:
1) Build the tree
2) Edit your tree by deleting the actions you don't want
3) Build database from that tree

To see how to delete actions from a tree with the editor, please watch the third video here: www.gtoplus.com/videos

Scylla

Why am I getting results like this when I look at my database, i.e. it shows the betting frequency for the OOP player (1) but not the IP player (2)?

There's a few issues in displaying frequencies for player 2. First of all, if player 1 has multiple actions, then there's multiple decisions where player 2 gets to act. So it's not a single spot for player 2, but multiple spots. Each spot would need to get its own separate table. Secondly, and more importantly, player 1 will have a different betting/checking range for every flop. On some flops he may bluff a lot, on others he's only betting the absolute nuts. Although it's possible to plot player 2's reaction to player 1 across the different flops, the data for each flop is measured under completely different circumstances. As a consequence, this data isn't really suitable to be plotted in a graph/table. We can consider doing so anyhow for later releases, but right at this moment, we have left it out for this reason.

It would be handy to see it. Basically I was just looking to run various flop textures to look at player 2's cbetting % on the different board types. I can click on the flops to get the into but it would've been handy to have them displayed in the table, similar to player 1.

Thx for your advice. Now I can edit

Ok, I will consider it for later releases.

Ok here goes possibly dumbest questions ever but here it goes. Before moving onto GTO+ im trying to master every aspect of CREV first. Im still trying to figure out how to best interpret the EV results of calculated decisions in trees.

So example on the turn both SB and BB have made decisions with their respective ranges that are both + ev say sb's EV is +4.3 and BB's is +1.7 are we playing with the numbers to see what the best possible line is??? Like if I can get 1.7 with BB play are we looking to maximise that number and play with the actions until we can squeeze more ev out of a play? Basically whats screwing me up is that they both have + EV plays on the turn, so neither play is really wrong?

So i understand that for each node the EV is a sum of the decisions and that the EQ for each decision node is based on our equity vs villains range at that moment. But the EV and how we digest and interpret the results of the calculator is where i need help like ok we built this tree and both hero and villain have +EV lines so whos better what do we do with this info?

So for the long winded post anyone help please!

The total pot is 6 and if played optimally long term players will earn that amount of EV,4.3 and 1.7 respectively. It is based on range advantage.

So SB strategy is superior and BB should find a better counter that will yield him higher EV? So if it was end of hand than SB would come out ahead. MY point is we get these numbers and now what? So you said SB has the range advantage so BB must adjust his range until he yields a higher EV?

I guess my point is if BB's move is +EV which it is at 1.7 than its a good play. So im wondering how both SB and BB can both have played well and both be rewarded its like contradicting information. Im missing something when it comes to interpreting these results....

Let's say I want to study exploitative poker, if I use gto+ and assign my and villain range them nodelock his range with the actions I believe he is doing with certain hands, If I do this and run the solver the changes my range will suffer will be to Max exploit villain or will still be something equilibrium?

Enviado de meu XT1033 usando o Tapatalk

If played optimally neither player can improve more than 4.3 and 1.7.That is Nash Equilibrium. That's what solvers r for.To find Nash.

1

If his moves r not optimal only than u can play exploitive poker.

For example if I know my opponent is calling too much, if I nodelock his range with hands that he should fold and set them to call, when I run the solver again with the nodelock my strategy will change in a way that I start value betting more to get most value possible but still don't overvalue me? If I use the solver this way I will discover the max exploitative strategy that I should play against this particular opponent to not lose value? The result the solver give me will be a max exploitative strategy possible against this opponent or it is only a little more exploitative than the optimal strategy

Enviado de meu XT1033 usando o Tapatalk

It will be optimal strategy against that play(u have to be sure that he will not deviate his play and that he will play like that 100%).That means not max exploitive. For exploitive play CREV has max exploitive tool but I have never fully understand and mastered CREV.I find GTO+ more simple.U have to know that when u try to exploit u r leaving a gap for villain to counter that and exploit u even more.

Ok thanks for the explanation!

cheers

So does anyone here a comparsion for the GTO plus vs the Piosolver?

I would recommend starting with GTO+. It's in essence CREV2 and has been designed with the intent to be easy to work with.


The trick here is that the players are fighting over the pot, and each will get a certain share of that pot. See the pic below for an example. We see that we start with a pot of 30 (below SB's decision). SB's EV is 13.99. In 35.6% of the cases he will bet, leading to a spot where BB has an EV of 12.6. And in 64.4% of the cases he will check, and BB will have an EV of 17.9. That makes BB's overall EV 35.6%*12.6 + 64.4%*17.9 = 16.01. So the sum of SB's and BB's EV is 13.99 + 16.01 = 30, which is exactly the pot. This will always be the case; the sum of the overall EVs will always be the pot (unless rake is involved). This is because the pot is what the players are fighting over. SB will win 13.99 of the pot of 30, and BB will win the remaining 16.01.

You will be playing max exploit versus villain regarding the parts that are locked, however, you assume that villain plays perfectly in the unlocked parts of the tree. This is the best use of the software. Simply enter play for villain to the extent that you feel comfortable with his play, and let the solver figure out the rest.

GTO+ can essentially do everything that pio can, and is even in many ways superior. Some people assume that because we offer it for less, there must be a reason for this. However, the reason for the pricing is simply that we don't want to charge regular consumers huge amounts of money for gaming-related software. Pio mainly still has a userbase because they were the first to create a solver of this type, making them better known to the general public.

Our solving speeds are similar to pio, our memory use is lower, and the solutions are the same (assignment of which hands to bluff with may vary a bit).
Furthermore, GTO+ converges to 0%, while pio will typically stop converging at about 0.05%.
Other than that, we offer small savefiles, requiring only a few hundred kb per save (non-stored data can quickly be recalculated on the fly).
Our small savefile approach allows us to let you create databases of hundreds of trees, which is something I believe pio can not offer.
We offer internal analysis tools analysing the solutions, as well as graphs, tables, etc; to the best of my knowledge pio only offers the most basic of analysis methods, while otherwise needing its output to be manually copied to external software.
We offer an editor with a graphical interface for editing trees, whereas pio only seems to offer some sort of text based editor.
And we offer a feature to toggle card removal ON/OFF throughout the solution.
And yes, we do indeed have multiple bet sizes (see video 3 on the tree builder here: www.gtoplus.com/videos).

The only thing that we don't offer is a preflop solver. It's possible for us to create this, but the problem is that this feature requires a custom built computer, which almost none of our target audience will have. A second reason is that a heads-up preflop solver solves exactly the part of poker where you would least need a GTO solution, namely preflop heads-up, where the sample size for historic data is huge. With some searching you may find some minor differences between pio and GTO+. We could easily add whichever features those may be; however, the decision not to clutter our interface with all sorts of buttons is more of an interface design choice, where we need to balance how many features are offered in the available space versus ease-of-use.

It's okay, I've just realised if I remove the option for player 1 to lead out I can get all the info in table form for player 2 that I require.

Ok so the way im understanding it is. To have a green colored +EV play is not enough. You must compare youre EV vs Villains EV to determine who has a bigger share of the pot. If you have a smaller share essentially you are losing money on that particular line with that range etc. So we are constantly comparing who has a bigger share of the pot at certain decision nodes?