As GTO+ works right now in v103 you only see the decision that you're working in. And you can only navigate through the tree by moving through it decision-by-decision.

However, in the next update with the new navigator, when you press space you will see a "map", or in this case the entire tree, so that you get an overview of where you are in the tree. This overview of the tree basically works the same as in CREV; you see the entire tree and can move your mouse over decisions/actions to get popups with more info. You can also use it to quickly move to a different part of the tree. The navigator also offers the ability to zoom in/out, so that even large trees can be viewed in their entirity.

The editor will be the second tab in the navigator. Here you will be able to make changes to the tree, such as deleting actions or adding actions.

This feature will be available under the "Advanced" tab of the tree builder. After that the editor can then be used to make changes to the tree, should you want to make tweaks. Technically the contents of the advanced tab are not very difficult; the challenge is in deciding on exactly which options are offered, and in which way they are presented.

So far work on the navigator seems to be going rather smoothly. With any luck we'll offer an update for it on Sunday, after which we'll start work on the next update with the tree builder+editor.

Awesome - thanks for clarifying.

So I solved the same exact spot in GTO+ as I did in crEV's solver...and was given quite different results. I ran them both down to ~0.1% target dEV. As you can see it's quite a big difference in our cbet range vs the BB. crEV checks back tons of A and K high without flushdraws, and every KJo whereas GTO+ wants us cbetting 88% (due range advantage, perhaps). FWIW crEV has us cbetting ~63%... Can you explain why they are different?

From what I can tell from the CREV screenshot, the trees are different. The CREV tree seems to end in checkdowns on the flop, which is not an option that is available in GTO+. If the trees are different, then the results will be different as well. If you want to create the same tree in CREV as in GTO+, then please use its tree building wizard (see the first video here: http://www.cardrunnersev.com/download.html). Should you want more detailed instructions for this, then please send the GTO+ savefile to support and I will explain more in-depth.

The trees are identical too, actually. Bet sizes are identical on both trees and both identically have OOP check flop ~99.9%+ of the time. crEV has IP bet ~63% while GTO+ has IP bet ~88%. check-raising from OOP will happen ~8% in crEV and ~16% in GTO+.

etc etc...

The CREV tree ends with a checkdown on the turn. Given that GTO+ trees do not contain checkdowns, these trees can not be the same. It's probably easiest if you send a GTO+ savefile for this spot to support. I will show you how to recreate the same tree in CREV with its tree building wizard.

Scylla

are there any additional instructional videos on how to use GTO+? I've watched the two on the main webpage and i'm still having trouble getting it to do what I want while interpreting the results.

Maybe I was misusing "check-down", but I figured it the easy way to ignore future street action when the trees are already complex on flop...or we just want to deal with flop action too.

You should really include play on the turn and river as well. In that way you are simulating play far more realistically. There's no need to fill in play yourself; you can just let the GTO solver take care of this. So just create a tree with the wizard and run the solver to let it figure out play. I have received your mail with the savefile and will answer in a minute. However, the most important thing to take away from this is that you will only get the same result in both programs if you use the same trees. If the trees are different, then the results will be different.

We are currently working on GTO+, with the next update possibly coming up as early as next Sunday. The two videos on the webpage are for releases v100 and v101. There's no video for v102 and v103, given that the most siginificant change there is that SitAndGo functionality has been added, which is a relatively straightforward feature to work with. Also, more extensive graphing options have been added for turn/river reports and aggregate flop reports. Again, we have decided not to bother too much with making a separate video for this, given that it's options that you will just run into when you use the graphing system; it's just buttons for different display modes.

Can you perhaps elaborate on what it is that you're trying to do?

How is dEV related to % of pot? I.E. what numbers should I use in GTO+ and crEV to solve for the same outcome?

I've run both for a solid few minutes and gotten pretty close to 0 but I'm still getting different outcomes (closer but still different). This time with the exact same tree (I referred to your email).

cbet 88% versus 96%, to start

I suspect that these are slightly different trees, but it's hard to tell from a screenshot. Can you please send both savefiles to support? For CREV, just send the tree prior to solving it, given that those will be a lot smaller.

sent

Ok, I've taken a look and it appears that the ranges are different.
For example, see the screenshot below for the wide range in both programs:



There's a difference in the narrow range as well, with 97s not being selected in the CREV file.

I can now that the problem is when I try to save the .gto File, it doesn't save adjustments made to the ranges (taking away QQ+ AK and adding 62s-82s).

Also just to re-ask: How is dEV related to % of pot? I.E. what numbers should I use in GTO+ and crEV to solve for the same outcome? I've gotten them very close now with similar ranges/trees, but not identical just yet.

Also, 97s is clearly selected in both...?

I was referring to the tight range.

You will need to rebuild the tree under "Build tree".


It's not unusual for the results to be slightly different. There's a lot of variation possible in the solution within any % of pot. A difference of a few tenths of a percent in the frequencies is to be expected. Typically 0.5% will be enough for the solution to be considered to be converged. However, there are a lot of configurations for the solution within this or any other bandwidth. Unless you manage to solve to 0% then you will always find small differences, even though both solutions are correct.

are these two equivalent?

crEV Target dEV: 0.5
and
GTO+ Target dEV: 0.5%

No, 0.5 means 50 cents. 0.5% means half of a percent of the pot (for example, if the pot is 40 then 0.5% of that is 20 cents). Please enter the same value for dEV in both programs.

ok so 0.5 in crEV = 50 cents, which basically means big blind = $1 if blinds are 0.5 / 1

but in your explanation you had bb = 2. shouldn't it be sb = 0.5 and bb = 1?

Forgive me this basic question...
Lets say we are on BB facing a raise from BTN. If we set up a range to BTN and an opening size, CREV is capable to tell us what hands we should call or 3bet?
And what about when we face a 3bet on SB vs BB?

Or CREV needs two preflop ranges to build a tree?

This is actually not a question that I would try to solve mathematically, given that your tracker (such as Holdem Manager or PokerTracker) has far more accurate historical data on these spots that apply specifically to you, the way you play and the level of skill of your average opponent. No matter how perfect any mathematical analysis in this spot, there's just no comparison to the level of detail+relevance found in your own historic performance. Using a mathematical approach is better reserved for postflop situations, where sample sizes are tiny and looking at historical performance is not an option. In these spots, both CREV and the upcoming software GTO+ (for more information go here: http://www.cardrunnersev.com/gtoplus.html) can fill in the gaps for you by essentially simulating play with a GTO solver. The GTO solver can figure out how the hand should be played, under the assumption that both players play perfectly. In this manner, through simulation, you can fill in the gaps for spots that happen too infrequently to look at historical data.

0.5 simply means 50 cents; it's not related to the size of the blinds.

hey scylla is there a way for me to deactivate my license on a laptop/computer, i'm getting rid of this laptop and would like to free up another key slot?

thanks.