Hi all, I've recently returned to poker after a long hiatus and have reached a point where I think building my own sims and studying those solves are beneficial to my game. I bought GTO+ for this and have a few questions about using it in conjunction with a presolved library of solutions like GTOBase, which I've studied a bit.

For example, I'm trying to simplify by using 1 cbet size per board texture (e.g. BTN vs. BB SRP 33% on K72r, 75% on 984tt, 150% on AK6r) instead of mixing as a presolve suggests. I'm using the GTO+ 89 flop subset and building trees that have 2-3 betsize options OTT and 4 betsizes OTR. These trees end up being pretty big and take a lot of computation time. I was wondering if it might be better to instead run the flop in a library, see which size the solver chooses predominantly, then trim trees to only include that one cbet size. Are there any downsides to doing that?

Secondly, is it easier to simplify to 33% and 75% cbets and do away with 150% flop altogether? I've heard that there is no or minimal EV loss as long as you give sufficient options to IP on later streets. Is that different from a practicality standpoint? Would it be more difficult to play and maintain the theoretical EV of a 75% strat on a 150% board compared to the default 150% strat?

Otf you can use one size and it almost dose not matter which one you pick, anything from 20% to 125% is fine. My recommendation would be to go with 25% because most ppl dont know how to defend vs that.

OTT- for IP you can have two bet sizes some mid like 2/3 and OB, you can keep same bet sizes for river just add all in. IP wont bet small ott and otr very often. For OOP player you should have small mid and big sizing.

I am most concerned about practicality on future streets - it doesn't seem to matter what sizes you play OTF as long as you give yourself enough options for betsizes OTT and OTR. What I want to know is if I eliminate the 150% flop size on boards where the solver prefers it, does that generally force me to play an unintuitive strategy in order to avoid blundering EV on later streets?

Also, I ran a BTN vs. BB 100bb SRP for 89 flops and my aggregate cbet frequency turned out to be only ~50%. I used GTOW 50nl preflop ranges for the sim. GTOBase has something like 59% cbet in this formation across all 1755 flops, and at 1:00 of this RIO video: https://www.runitonce.com/poker-trai...and-history-2/, Clanty shows his simmed frequency to be 72%.

Did I make an error in running this sim? Below I've added a snapshot of IP's results and the sim parameters. Every flop was solved to 0.25% accuracy.




Some of the flops are way off from GTOBase, like KT2m having 75% check vs. GTOBase 59% or Q98tt having 65% check vs. GTOBase 47%. Solver doesn't use 150% cbet on either of these boards, so lack of cbet options isn't the issue.



Turn OOP I've given 33, 75, and 150 (except when donking, it's only 33) while river OOP I have 25,75,150, and all-in. River IP has 50,75,150, and all-in.

GTOWizar also has cbet of 50% for that spots, so seems good. Cbet% will depend a lot on preflop ranges and it can be quiet sensitive esp if you look at one specific flop.

Really? The aggregate cbet % for this formation is something like 50%? Pretty surprising given everything I looked at has it in the 60-70% neighborhood.