Quote:
Originally Posted by SupYasuo
with this option, there's only one bet size that i can choose in turn and river.
that was weird for me.
So, I tried again without those options for more accurate suggestion.
Then I could get all the betting option but it took very long time.
Is there no big difference between, the option's on/off??
In real game, we use multiple bet size in turn and river, don't we?
Thx for answer
Ok, thank you for sending the savefile.
See here for a link for both your own savefile, and simplified versions of it that are solved far more easily:
www.crevfiles.com/crev/forum/1/processed.rar
How to measure performance
In order to compare the different files, we'll first need to know how to measure performance, so that we can see how much of a disadvantage is involved in using only single bet sizes on the turn/river as opposed to complex play. Measuring performance for the entire tree is actually very straightforward. For this, just go to the very first decision in the tree for OOP and check his EV. That's how much his entire strategy is worth. See below for the performance for OOP in the complex tree that you sent (
3BPot BTN 3.5 vs BB Ts9s6x.gto), that needed about 6GB of memory to solve. Apparently, this value is 11.20.
3BPot BTN 3.5 vs BB Ts9s6x_OOPs.gto
Now, what would happen if instead of complex turn/river play, we were to replace OOP's turn/river strategy with strongly simplified play. For this, I will go as far as giving him a single bet size of 65% for the turn/river, with the option "Get the money in smoothly" ON:
If we solve this tree, we see the following.
This is rather surprising, given that by any logic we would expect OOP to be at a huge disadvantage versus IPs complex turn/river play.
So, apparently OOP's EV has only dropped by as little as 12 cents.
This is only a drop of about 1% in the overall performance.
3BPot BTN 3.5 vs BB Ts9s6x_IPs.gto
Similarly, if instead of simplifying OOPs play, we simplify IP instead we only see an increase to 11.37, or in other words if IP were to give up his complex play for the favour of simplified betting, he only loses about 1.5% in performance.
3BPot BTN 3.5 vs BB Ts9s6x_IPs_OOPs.gto
For the _IPs_OOPs savefile, I have created a version of your tree where both IP and OOP use simplified play on the turn/river. The flop play, which is what we're interested in, is kept the same. This tree will only require 500MB to solve, which can be done within a few minutes. Below we see the frequencies for OOP (left for complex, right for simplified), which apparently are not strongly affected.
And here are the two matrices for OOP.
On the left is the one for complex play, requiring about 6GB, and on the right simplified play, requiring only 500MB:
So although using multiple bet sizes does indeed accomplish a very small increase in the quality of play, even strongly simplified turn/river play will lead to almost the exact same results. If in the simplified tree either IP or OOP were to use complex follow-up play instead, their increase in EV would be marginal at best.
The importance of bet sizing
For the simplified play so far I have used 65%, which is generally a fine default bet sizing to go with in the case of single bet play. A question that might arise though is how important this sizing actually is. For this, I have created the file
multiple.gto. This is a database file, similar to
3BPot BTN 3.5 vs BB Ts9s6x_OOPs.gto. The difference being that it tries out different default bet sizes for OOP, namely 50%,60%,70%,80%,90%,100%. If in the database report we compare the EV performance for OOP for the different sizes, we see the following result:
So, apparently, bet sizing barely has any influence at all on the performance for a player. You can get away with betting anywhere from 50% to 100% without any significant loss in performance. It appears that it's more important how you play, as opposed to which bet sizes you use. Also, using multiple bet sizes does not seem to give a significant advantage in GTO play (of course, in practical play exploiting your opponent's weaknesses with different bet sizes is a different story).
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupYasuo
In real game, we use multiple bet size in turn and river, don't we?
Thx for answer
For the purposes of the simulation it's not necessary to simulate every part of the tree with the same level of attention. It's somewhat like the graphics in a computer game. When standing 3 feet away, you can see individual leaves of grass and an insect walking across a leaf. But this is only for things that are close to you. Objects at a large distance don't require the same detail. So high complexity is only required for the parts that you're looking at. Similarly, if you're interested in flop play, and are only using the turn/river play for finishing up the tree, then using basic play is sufficient for this remaining play. Also, if stacks are deep, the option "Get the money in smoothly" will save a lot of memory and time as well. In deep stacked play, the money only very rarely goes in (about 1% of the scenarios). That particular scenario does not require as much simulation time as parts of the tree that are reached far more often.
Last edited by scylla; 05-03-2018 at 04:39 AM.