I have received one mail today that may have been from you, so it sounds like possibly a spam filter is deleting your mails. In this case, please try sending from a different address, or mail to a different support address (we offer several). As for sending a PM via this forum, I notice that you only have one post. On 2+2 the ability to send a PM requires something along the lines of 5 or 10 posts.

Okay, so when do we need to use the max exploit tool? ...reading the outdated guide on the site doesn't give me much information on it

CREV is originally intended as an EV calculator. When using the software as an EV calculator, the Max Exploit tool is very handy in pointing out leaks in villain's game, as well as showing how exploitable his strategy is (if the strategy has great weaknesses, then villain's EV will drop significantly when the tool is applied).

When used together with the GTO functionality on the other hand, villain's game will not have significant leaks, given that not being exploitable is the entire point of GTO play. In this context the Max Exploit tool can be used to check if the change of EV is indeed within the given dEV.

A second possible use however, is when applying the solver to trees where you have made assumptions about villain's play. In this case you can use it to see how many leaks you are creating in your own game when making these assumptions. So in this case you will have filled in play for villain and locked it to the solver. After solving the tree with the GTO solver, you can run the max exploit tool for villain with the option "No, perform Max Exploit for all actions" turned ON to see how big the leaks are that you have created by deviating from GTO play. Also, it will tell you how villain should respond to your play, should he pick up on what you are doing.

What is specifically restrict in trial mode? Only tree building? If so, importing hands have some kind of limitations?

Hey scylla on your Website you say that the GTO Update will be for free for those who bought CREV after 31.12.14 - how much do I have to pay as a User who bought CREV before that date?


Gesendet von meinem KFDOWI mit Tapatalk

GTO+ has the limitation that it can only be used on Td9d6h flops.
CREV has a tree size limitation.
However, f I remember correctly, hands can be imported regardless of size.

We haven't made any decisions here yet, however, GTO+ will be made available at a discount for users who purchased prior to 1/1/2015. Also, there's no rush for the moment, given that for the duration of the beta all our users can use GTO+ for free.

Just purchased CREV because of GTO+. I love the speed and small files, but it's still so super basic compared to PIO. I know it's beta.

I can't wait for multiple betsizes, saved preflop charts, scripts and other things already mentioned here by others. i hope next realease will be here very soon.

Thank you for your support.
We're working hard on the next update, which will hopefully be available by next Sunday.
It will offer turn/river reports and scripting, as well as some other features.

Could I change the turn and river bet size in GTO+ atm?

GTO+ is currently in beta and one of the features that is not present yet is a tree builder/editor. We will begin desiging the tree editor/navigator shortly after the upcoming release though, so this functionality should be available within the foreseeable future.The upcoming update is almost complete at this point, and it will feature, amongst other things turn/river reports and our own variation of scripting. We have however also decided to add one more additional feature to this release, so it will take a bit longer than originally planned. It should be available in about a week though.

Hi,
GTO+ doesn't properly apply ranges in hand matrix from other softwares-
Here is example of range

[50]AhKh, AdKd, AsKs, AcKc[/50], AdAh, AsAh, AcAh, AsAd, AcAd, AcAs

It completely ignores AA combos

Ah, I see. It can read it if it's AdAh, AsAh, AcAh, AsAd, AcAd, AcAs, [50]AhKh, AdKd, AsKs, AcKc[/50], but not in the format that you posted. I'll fix that for the next release. Thank you for pointing this out.

I runned a simulation here in both softwares and It show me differents results. Which one is correct? And why this is happening? I runned the same ranges PRF, same cbet sizing, same CBET range, same dEV on both softwares.Its seens th GTO+ ranges makes more sense... but since this is on beta, maybe show some mistakes...

Eq. solver results (Villain is on BB, and eq. solver show me that we should fold Qks,x/ with some 79s, 67o, etc):

https://gyazo.com/455df33e6f6b0d456a817135917998a2


GTO+ resuts (here it saiyng to call some Qks):

https://gyazo.com/0e2e69e3589e02fe0e4d6186bf6b7567

I've got what is wrong... RANGE 1 is OOP and RANGE 2 is IP!

ANOTHER QUESTION:


Why both softwares says that we should be folding 99 (OOP) sometimes and always calling with K6s? we have 40% equity on both hands and we are not blocking too many betters combos? Is really correct? Fold 99 sometimes here? Thanks!

THE SPOT:

https://gyazo.com/d0d82f864fd2ccb00b8ec53d1abc1563

Because K6s has more outs and it will more easily be able to realize it's 40% equity either by making a 6 or a K or bluff raising with a blocker. 99 has none of those benefits so it will struggle to realize it's equity.

I agree with getmeoffcompletely here. In this spot, I'd much rather have K6 than 99, given that the former is much easier to play. These hands are actually very similar in absolute strength, given that they only have 77 and 88 between them. They are both pretty much just hands that beat middle pair (after all, K6 is the middle pair nuts).

Although equity is a pretty decent way to get a rough estimate of the value of a hand, it's definitely not a perfect instrument for measuring playability. For example, you can see this if you plot EV versus Equity in a graph. Often, hands with a similar equity will have different EVs. Typically hands with draws perform really well on the flop as compared to their equity, and one pair type hands with no strong redraws perform relatively poorly:



This particular graph was pulled from CREV, but will also be available in the upcoming v101 of GTO+.

Hi Scylla.
On GTO+, is it possible to not specify a flop, turn or river, as with CREV?
Thanks
Rod

GTO+ is intended for postflop heads-up analysis.
Such analysis can only be performed if a board is provided.

Thanks. I know it is for heads up analysis. Why does a board need to be provided? Even if it takes 10 minutes to calculate, is there any value /possibility mathematically of solving for GTO on an unknown/random board?

Thanks
Rod

There's roughly 20k different flops. Solving for every single one of them would take about a month and require a few terrabytes of memory. On top of that, knowing the solution for the average does not really have much value; the flop will be known at the point where you start making postflop decisions.

It still gives a lot of free information, e.g. I used 100% preflop ranges for 1 on 1, and x9+ (plus ax, 22, x7s) preflop ranges and spent two days just looking at the results, and liked them; just made it more simple for myself.

Pio flop that is like kq2s seems to not give the raise results, that with the other range I tried, made it give wrong answers, as it cbets then any pair for value, as it never gets check raised (or so I think the reason might be).

I learned significantly from gto+ and much of the turn and river play will still take many days, plus all the rewatching for memory purposes.

I used 70 euros for Hearthstone card packs (got 60 packs), instead. Way to go before I will need to start looking into other flops and buy this one (Pio costs 200 or 250 dollars).

I suppose the turn and river is all sort of free (like Piosolver has), although not as connected to flop play, that at least with Pio was sort of less useful (for me) because of that (if one sees the flop, then one can see all turn cards related, more or less similar to gto+).

I still have some distance to go to not cbet as many good top pair hand on the default flop with X9+ ranges, as one generally is supposed to cbet way more top pairs, and not go to relative nut top pair lines when IP with the lead. But other than that, I did agree with up to all else, to this day.

My mediocre gaming laptop gets at least to 80 C when the solver runs; no need to use the turbo cooler yet, but I still use it, like when I run a chess engine, just in case, as one esports game killed my ordinary laptop for that reason earlier this year. But there is no major monitor activity, that is generally the main killer, e.g. my chess engines have never killed any of my computers, and they run up to very hot.

CREV wasn't really working for my handicapped non software brain, in 15 minutes, as some flop limitations made it impossible to get the correct preflop answers with the free software, as it only considers one flop. Although I wasn't even looking to get but mere preflop answers, but it was difficult.

So, I use the free Equilab instead for preflop ranges as it is simple, although I will have to input every hand separately (after picking opponent's range) to see if I can call 10bb or 20bb+ shove, but it is simple, as all one needs is a 40% to 50% ev (because of pot odds).

All decisions between 10 and 20+ bb can be estimated; so, needing just those two for now. I only needed to know ranges like 12.5%, 25%, 50% and 100% and then basically call them with half of those ranges, generally skipping the soft hands like KJ though, when vs. a 20+ bb shove, as they are maybe good enough mostly with fold ev, as the aggressor, not as the caller.

I guess one needs to be a rather advanced player before one would need CREV also for something (not sure for what, after 15 minutes), and it is rather difficult to get into (in my case), unlike the gto+ that is very easy, just needing to spend a lot of time looking at the results (like being the ****** monkey that one might be, trying to understand it all).

But it is worth it if one can invest the time. I knew GTO well before this already, but this is a higher education with exact details, and it isn't of full use before one understands at least most of it, so one can adjust it when needed vs. deviations, not to mention vs. different boards and situations overall. Plus adding a tourney aspect to it would be impossible without a better understanding of why and the additional tourney maths and psychology. Although not sure how much I can improve as so also, but at least I have the equilibrium ranges and its details, rather than just what the books cover, making me a more free man.

That's helpful, thanks Scylla. I suppose a similar thing applies to having 3 players post flop - a few days of calculations!?

It's probably possible to bring calculation time down by using some simplifications, but even then it would be a feature that requires a lot of time and is heavy on resources. A secondary challenge here would be that multi-way postflop spots are both relatively rare and much harder to plan for. For example, when doing heads-up research there's already two variables: Your own range, and villain's range. In a 3-way spot suddenly there's a third player involved with his own range. If we assume that there's about 10 different range types for this third player, then the amount of spots to plan for increase by a factor 10. So it's a factor 10 more scenarios, each of which is probably 100 times harder to calculate, for spots that almost never occur. There's quite a lot more to be said on the subject (the trees are huge; it's almost impossible to translate into something that can be used in real-life), but this would just turn into a way too long post. That being said, what it comes down to is that all-in-all, I feel that postflop multiway solving is not really that interesting from a practical point of view.

Thanks. Online, yes most flops are heads up. Live, different story, at least in Australia. Probably 4 players on the flop on average! (in $2- $5). Cheers.