Trying out the different single sizes would work best, given that if you want to find the optimal size, then just trying out different sizes is the most direct approach. Using multiple bet sizes may result in the solver landing on a solution where for example a 50% size and a 90% size is used most frequently for two different ranges, whereas if you were forced to use a single size for the entire range, it would have landed on 60%. In the end though, bet sizing has only a very limited influence on the overall performance, and it's far more important to focus your efforts on the quality of play.

Am i wrong in thinking that the quality of play is driven by a deeper understanding of bet sizes? Or am I misunderstanding you point?

The CREV and gto are different programs?

Yes,CREV is EV calculator,GTO+ is a solver.

Whatever bet size u are choosing there will be equilibrium solution with almost the same result. So if u play it like a bot ,that's the quality of play.

Thanks.so if I bought the CREV I have the the other one as well?

I'm quite happy with the solver, good job scylla.

I have one big request (apologize if it is already implemented and i am too daft to figure it out)

Please make it so that we can have weights on the flops in the database mode similar to how piosolver does it. I believe we can already do this when importing handranges, but being able to do it for flops would be quite helpful.

This is how it looks with the last part being the weight i imagine.
7sQsAs:1.98
7sKsAd:0.95
8s9dAc:2.04

Thanks again!

I was able to solve shallow stack (<30bb) games with my 16gb RAM and i7 within hours. Weighted selected flops (similar EV-wise flops put into one with multiplier of frequency they happen) make this possible. It's not that heavy if you simplify it enough. And the value of even approximated solution is huge.
Most of the games nowadays runs with just about 1 recreational. For example 6max cash games run with 1 recreational player and 5 regulars so non-exploitable play happens every time vip player folded which is a lot.

Ok, I'll take it under consideration.

Bet sizes are almost completely irrelevant if you play GTO. For any bet size there will be a GTO strategy that has approximately the same overall EV as the GTO strategy for any other bet size. Even using multiple bet sizes instead of a single bet size will not lead to any significant improvement. The quality of play is what is most important. To get the overall EV for a strategy, check OOP's EV below the table in his very first decision:

Yes, GTO+ is to a large extent CREV2.
So purchasing either program will also include a license for the other.

I just noticed that adding more bet sizes on the turn and river can vastly affect flop strategies, which seems obvious to me now. One thing I suggested earlier was allowing GTO+ to add/delete turn and river bet sizes without solving the flop all over again the way Simple Postflop does. But now I'm curious, how does Simple Postflop do this without solving the flop all over again? I'm guessing it just sort of locks in the flop strategy based on the parameters you set at the beginning. I just have the free version of it by the way.

Not sure if this should go in the GTO+ or Simple Postflop thread so sorry if this is in the wrong one.

If I solved 3 flops separately, is there a way to combine them into a single database without having to solve them all again?

I assume that it would lock the flop strategy for this. A disadvantage would be that the flop strategy does not completely match the tree. In the end though, any questions about a third party product are probably best directed at their own support.

Not at the moment, no. We can consider extensive database exchange operations between different files for later releases (at the risk of ending up with a feature that's difficult to use), but at the moment such a feature is not there.

Really enjoyed GTO+ so far! This is a pretty niche request:

Is there any chance to add a donk betting option for the out of position player on the turn/river as a checkbox (but still remain passive on the flop)? Currently, the OOP passive option ensures passivity both on the flop and turn if the OOP player called a IP player flop bet.

Without the OOP passive option checked, there are a few solutions where the OOP player donks into the IP player on the flop...I know that's GTO optimal behavior for certain flop textures/ranges, but it's hard to implement into my general gameplan and balance correctly into my current strategy - I generally prefer checking my entire range on the flop in almost all situations. However, I would still like to have a turn or river donking range as the OOP player after being passive on the flop and calling a flop bet.

It's pretty annoying to go to edit mode and mark the OOP entire range on the flop as checks when I want to see what a turn donk range looks like for the OOP player after he calls a flop bet from IP player.

It's possible to use custom settings for the flop/turn/river.
For this, first select "Use custom settings for flop" (or turn/river).
Then click on the little triangle to get access to additional options.

Does Gto+ display a heatmap for EV on the matrix? The rows beneath the EV tab list EV values for combos, but I haven't seen it projected visually.

Pio has this

There's a lot of information available in the solver, and hundreds of different ways to visualize that data. This is one of those many ways. I'm happy to consider it for later releases, but in all fairness, when it comes to translating data from the solver to practical solutions, there's not much added value here. It's just one more button in the interface to display the data in a different way.

What happened to the Unexploitable Shove Tool? Is there a new way to mimic that button?

Given that the new GTO solver is a general case of unexploitable shoving, the Unexploitable Shoving tool was removed from the interface. It's still available though, by using Ctrl+Alt+U.

Hi,

Does the program include the option to export this data?

https://gyazo.com/52aa9715160c62bccec2bb694da96941

Not at the moment. We can include it for later versions, but right at this point there's no dedicated text output for this part of the interface.

Hey Scylla. I'm looking at some database solves and have a couple points of feedback:

1) I would really like to be able to look at how *QTs* performs across all the flops in my database rather than having to pick *QhTh* because I am using a subset of flops that does not use suits symmetrically. I.e. all monotone flops are in spades. It is a big headache to try to understand why a combo in the heat map is doing better or worse than expected while averaging QhTh (which never flops a flush) and QsTs (which flops a flush ~4x too often). Likewise 77 without 7s flops more sets, etc, etc. I would really like to be able to look at all the flops I have solved for a hand shape without removal affecting the picture.

2) Having customisable colours for the heatmap for aggregated EV would be great for reasons I have already mentioned of this colour region being unfriendly to colourblind users.

I'm sure there will be more things I come across which I would like to have tweaked but I will definitely say I am very pleased with the software overall.

Hey Scylla. I have recently started using GTO+ and this is my first proper go using a solver.

I noticed whilst using it the other day that when I build trees that the solver always looks to try and get stacks in. Is this how it's meant to be? Does it makes sense to want to get all in by every river? Especially since preference on dry flop boards is small cbet sizing.

Secondly I noticed the % are off. Solved a 8.5bb pot preflop with 100bb effective. After a 97% pot bet size on flop it assumes 32bb by turn. I'm very confused by this and was hoping you can help.

Thanks