I am currently working w the 25 flop subset Pio suggests, but am looking for a way to narrow this down further, to perhaps 10-15 boards (in order to make my study w solvers as efficient as possible, while still effectively representing a range of board textures).

Which method would people suggest I use to define & categorize boards, before prioritizing further. I figure categorizing into high, medium, low boards works well, but I would first need to find/create a definition for what would constitute each. Any advice would be amazing, whether that be definitions for high, medium, low boards, or some other way of categorizing entirely. ty.

25 flop subset mentioned: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/07...46264467327999

Is this what you mean? Trying to group them further?

1. 3s3dKs
2. 7s7d6s
3. QsQd7s
4. 2d3sAs
5. 2s4d8c

6. 2s5dQc
2s6dQc the most similar in the list

7. 2d9sKs
2sQsKd
pretty different but still more similar than others

8. 3s5d8c
9. 3sTdJc
10. 3sJsAd

11. 4s9dTc
5s6dTc
can these be grouped?

12. 4s6sJd
4sTsJd Kind of close.

13. 4dTsKs
5s9sKd

14. 5d7s9s

15. 7d8sTs
7d8sJs


16. 7sQsAs
17. 7sKsAd

18.5s6dAc
8s9dAc

I did this super quick just to check if this is what you mean. I'm sure this could be easily improved.

I'm not op but somedays ago I was searching about this what you wrote

Enviado de meu XT1033 usando o Tapatalk

Yea, this is one method of what I was talking about. Just highlighting similar boards like this is def one way to go about prioritizing boards, but it seemed one of the less effective methods (perhaps it isn't?). If I could devise a way to first categorize these boards into a few groups, I could then select the one's (out of each group) which I feel would be most strategically different according to a solver. I will for sure take your findings into account, and likely remove for example one of the 2s5dQc & 2s6dQc boards you highlighted.

As mentioned in the OP, my original idea was if I could define high, medium and low boards, I could then categorize using this method & remove flops accordingly. Without thinking too hard, other methods of categorization could work such as paired boards, A high boards, BW boards etc. but they seem less clean almost.

Honestly, perhaps this approach is OTT & unnecessary, reasonably new to well devised solver study, thus the post. It's also probably not a terrible idea to just put in the extra hours & use all 25 flops suggested in the subset, it just seems this process could be streamlined. Cheers

The 25 flop subset you got on the piosolver website is meant to be used for running reports. It is not a good place to start for flops to prioritize for in depth studying. Also beware trying to group flops, even slight changes in players ranges (especially 3-bet pots or other situations with slightly narrow ranges) will change frequencies drastically on 'similar looking' flops.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...-game-1408420/