It already works like this if you use the "process all files in a folder" feature.
In that case, the file is auto-saved after every solved tree.

Hey Scylla,

Was wondering about some functionality for GTO+. Often times I might consider cbetting small oop but if I check I expect my opponent to bet half pot or more. This is often the thoertically correct bet sizing for both players. However I can't seem to make GTO plus reflect these decisions. So far as I can tell I only have the option to put in a first bet size and it doesn't matter who puts this bet in or when.

Is there a way to deal with this in the program or might it be possible in future versions. I've noticed there's an as yet unavailable 'advanced' tab in the bet sizing.

Thats the one shortfall is the bet sizing options and Checking or betting OOP options etc. Thats one thing I like about PIO is the amount of bet sizing options. But this program is still new and Im sure will be developed allot more in the future. It would be the smartest thing.

This will be available in the next update, which will complete the final "Advanced" tab in the software. Before that, around Monday, there will be a smallish additional update though, with some new features that we didn't get to earlier, as well as some bugfixes (32bit version did not automatically run as admin at startup, aggregate reports for databases with multiple flops were often not shown, etc).

Hi Scylla,

For GTO+, are there any plans to allow the user to specify a set of frequencies that the solver has to assign to each combination? E.g. the solver has to assign a frequency of 0%, 50%, or 100% for each action for each combination in a player's range.

This functionality would be really useful!

That's a cool idea - would be awesome to have this in CREV too.

Unfortunately this would not help much in interpreting the data. It would be easy enough for us to do, but generally messing with individual data points in large data sets is something to be avoided. Basically it comes down to translating one set of data that transcends human understanding to a different set of data that still transcends understanding. In itself this would still not be a problem, however, rounding also loses important information.

For example, if a hand is 10% bet and 90% check, then the most important piece of information is that the hand is a mix between the two actions. When a solutions is mixed, the EV for both actions will actually be the same; the player is indifferent between the two. The particular mix is only chosen to set up frequencies in the lines after it; not because the player prefers one action over the other. Rounding loses the important information that a mix was found, as well as which exact frequencies were being set up.

When looking at large data sets the approach to take is to look at statistics like, for example, the "top pair", "set", "middle pair", and get a feel for which hand strengths are played in which manner. Other approaches are to organize in tables, graphs, charts, etc. This is a lot easier to remember, interpret and translate into practical strategies as opposed to focussing on the individual data points.

I don't know how the algorithms that solvers use work, but would the solution using a restricted set of frequencies for each action really be as simple as rounding the optimal frequency of each action? I would have thought that if you had ten similar hands with 10:90 frequencies, as per your example, that the restricted solution would probably approximate this as nine hands with 0:100 frequencies and one hand with 100:0 (or a mixture including 50:50). I'm just speculating, though.

I've only just started experimenting with solvers as a study tool, so thank you for your thoughts and suggestions.

Question for the GTO+ users out there. Im guessing Range 1 is for the player OOP and Range 2 is for the player IP? Also if the player OOP was going to check as his first action, do you just run the solver and then choose the check branch, and then start looking at the solution form there on out? Can anyone explain the Lock feature and how it is utilized? I wish I knew someone that could help me out that used this piece of software on a regular basis. Anybody out there interested in starting a Study group using this Trifecta of Cardrunners Software? I mean Flopzilla, CardrunnersEv and GTO+, mainly to analyze and discuss HH's and Theoretical spots. But yeah if anyone can answer the first couple questions that would be great.


cheers

Adding restrictions will at the very least cause the solver to not fully converge. I've tried a bit and it seemed to hang at a dEV of about 5%. But in other cases, as far as I know, it may be a much higher dEV. A bigger problem though is that messing with the data points will not make the solutions easier to understand. It will only lose valuable information.

Yes, player 1 is always OOP and player 2 is always IP.
We prefer 1 and 2 over abbreviations, given that it's easier to understand in all languages.

For the moment, if you only want him to check, then you can just lock his decision to always check. The next main release will offer more elaborate tree building+editing options, so from then on you will be able to just leave out the bet action entirely.

As for an explanation of the locking feature, please just watch the first video here: http://www.cardrunnersev.com/gtoplus.html. Basically you just need to click on "Lock+edit decision" to enter edit mode. After that you can edit the ranges as you see fit.

I think perhaps I have misunderstood the posters original idea.

I thought the poster was asking for the ability to require the solution to fit within the constraint of certain frequency %.

Eg I know in my player pool players cbet x%, check-raise y%, turn cbet z% etc.

If I had a CREV tree, and I could specify that the relevant action had frequency x, y and z%, and then the solution was based on this.

It may not be easy to do, but I would have thought the solution would still be a meaningful one

I think for the short term we are just going to focus on the regular development. There will be an update later today with some bugfixes, but also some new output modes in the graph for, amongst other things, reports:



One of the most important bugfixes will be for the database feature, which previously did not properly display the "all flops" button, that combined all data for all flops within a database:



After that we will begin on v104, which should contain more elaborate tree building+editing features.

Looks great, excited to try it out!

It's already available.
It was posted a few hours ago.

I still can't see those buttons and I god v103

The other display modes should show up for turn/river reports.
The "all flops" tab will show up when looking at a database for different flops.

Are you not seeing the buttons with reports, the "all flops" tab, or both?

Hey,
Any approximate date for next update?

The most recent update was last Tuesday (v103).
Having just begun on v104, it's really difficult to give time estimates.

so gto+ can pretty much do everything PIO solver can do now? Why should someone choose one over the other?

The solving speeds are similar, and the solutions are the same. One difference is that GTO+ converges to 0%, while pio seems to hang at around 0.05% (this number may vary, but pio never seems to fully converge). Personally I feel that we have a far better interface, however, you can judge for yourself with the videos here: http://www.cardrunnersev.com/gtoplus.html. We also offer very small savefiles (as little as roughly 100kb), the ability to store multiple trees in databases (which, again, require almost no storage space) and make comparisons between them. Furthermore GTO+ offers various graphing options for visualizing ranges, turn/river reports and databases. To the best of my knowledge, GTO+ is the only software to offer these features; or at very least to offer it with a dedicated and optimized interface. GTO+ is still in beta though, and we still need to complete the tree editor, as well as an extensive view of the tree like in CREV. We may actually end up releasing these in two separate releases so that users already have access to the tree navigator while we finish work on the editor.

just updated GTO+, I can't find these options.. maybe I'm just blind but how do you get those ? Will there be update for GTO+ tutorial on the website?

I was about to post some screenshots, but I see that r2t2k2 has beaten me to it . These options are indeed available if you either go to a turn/river report, or if you look at the results in a database which contains the same tree for multiple flops. In the latter case it will be under the "All flops" tab. To see how to get a turn/river report and how to use the database feature, please watch the second video here: http://www.cardrunnersev.com/gtoplus.html

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by navigator and editor, but I think most users would agree with me when I say that the feature that it would be really great to see next would be the ability to build more advanced game trees (specify bet/raise sizings street by street). Being able to specify multiple bet size options would also be nice, as this can be very important for certain spots in practice. I realise that it's challenging to implement these features in a clean and intuitive way, but I look forward to seeing what you come up with!