GTO+ and CREV use essentially the same algorithm, so if the tree is the same, they should give the same result. If the results are different, then this will mean that the trees are different.

Most likely the overall EV of your strategy will drop when making changes to the solution. It's possible to increase the EV of individual combos or lines, but only at the cost of the loss of EV for other combos/lines. For example, the GTO solution may recommend checking a flopped set in order to strengthen the checking range. If you instead decide to bet it, then the EV for that set will indeed increase, but the overall EV for the entire strategy will drop due to the checking range having become weaker.

Thanks for your response ik it was a long post, and that makes sense im surprised that the overall flop EV did drop...

I'm just wondering why the solver chooses this strategy (thought it wud do something different thats why its quite confusing to me and was hoping u cud explain why the solver was doing this).

It's hard to say why the solver arrives at a solution. Its reasoning is mathematical, and does not translate easily to the human brain. Similarly to for example a chess engine, it can only tell us the outcome it has arrived at; interpreting why certain strategies are chosen is a challenge on the end of the user. That being said, please consider using single bet sizes instead of multiple bet sizes. Multiple bet sizes offer almost no increase in the overall EV of a strategy (in other words, they barely increase your winrate in GTO play), but have as a downside that the solution becomes far more complex. There's often barely a reason for a combo to be assigned to a certain bet size, with a different bet size having an almost identical EV. Interpreting a solution becomes far more difficult when introducing additional complications.

GTO+ is really growing on me. Was wondering if there could be more options for accounting for rake. In a lot of live casino's, esp in the US, the rake isn't with percentage of the pot but with a fixed 5usd on the flop + 1usd if turn is seen + 1usd if river is seen.

Ok noob to solvers.. So If I have never used CREV, should I just start off using GTO+ then?

Ofc.CREV is way more complex.I never really mastered it.GTO+ is easier to use.Just watch those demo videos...
Also Adam Wheeler on YouTube has some videos about GTO+...

Thanks! Just tried the trial version while watching the Adam Wheeler videos and it’s so easy. Gonna buy my copy tomorrow and have some fun with this!

Ok, thank you for the feedback.
I will look into it for later releases.

Hi Scylla

is there an option to lock the actions of one player entirely (on either GTO+ or CREV)?

i want to see how different types of strats fare vs GTO, but it would be very long to lock every single raise/bet/call.

Such an option is currently not available, but I will take it under consideration for later releases.

Thank you for the feedback,

Scylla

Having the ability to 'chart' more multiple variable EV's/Equities/Frequencies for each bet size would be super helpful. For example, there are a lot of spots where people execute a flop strategy where they use a majority small cbet size. It would be nice to be able to chart the strategy response for a player on different textures vs a small cbet (noticed you're able to do this in pio)

Hi Scylla,

i also have another suggestion for a feature to add.

1. (minor) is there a way of viewing GTO+ so that we can view/construct trees like we could in CREV? I still find myself going back to CREV for some sims precisely because it's easier to build trees with multiple bet sizes.
- yes i know the EV doesn't change but the solution sure does, and while no one can practically use 0.2 combos of a hand for half pot, and 0.8 combos for full pot, the things learned can be used to construct pure strategies for multiple bet sizes.

2. (major - potentially?) is there a minmax solver feature in CREV / GTO+? This doesn't matter if you're running sims without rake (where GTO = minmax), but i have run a few sims with rake (i imagine most players do this) where the opponent's exploit EV gives hero a better EV (e.g. 10bb), than when the opponent goes 100% raise mode (e.g. hero's ev is now 8bb). i've attached some screen grabs to show examples. I've said this is only potentially major because i don't know what the minmax EV will come to. If, in the below examples, the minmax EV for BTN is only 180, then i don't care. But how can I know this without testing / knowing the math?


look at BTN's EV when SB is max exploit:


Now look at BTN's EV when SB chooses to self harm by 3betting too much:

Scylla

I'm having a little trouble understanding something. In the pic below player one has check-raised the flop, bet the turn and I'm looking to see what combos it bluffs on the river. Looking at the pic it shows we have 6.426 combos but there are 21 in the table.

Actually I've worked it out, I see it includes every possible combo you get there with no matter how low the frequency.

We can consider it for later releases, however, an alternative would be to just create multiple one variable files and work from those. An advantage there is that it's very easy to work with, whereas dedicated multi-variable features can get really complex really fast.

For this you can use the tree editor.
See the screenshot below.
It's also described in the third video here: www.gtoplus.com/videos




CREV offers a max exploit tool for this. Please do note though that playing max exploit will make you very vulnerable to being exploited yourself. The max exploit tool is mostly intended to point out vulnerabilities in a strategy (for example folding too often). It's not a recommended way of playing. Generally the best way to approach analysis is to only lock the part of villain's strategy that you feel confident about, leave the rest unlocked, and then run the GTO solver.

when building the tree is there a way to express bet sizes as a $$ amount rather than %?

You can use absolute sizes when using the tree editor. For a demonstration of the editor, please see the third video here: www.gtoplus.com/videos. It's however not possible to enter absolute sizes in the tree builder itself, given that most fields there may need to apply to different pot sizes (depending on which bets were made previously).

Hey guys,

first of all: great Tool!

I've on question about the "ideal/perfect" betsizing. For example we have BTN vs BB single-raised-pot and in this line-up we want to use three different sizes for flop cbetting, but only each one sizing for one board. No i want to check which sizing is the best at xyz board...

...now i take the ranges in GTO+ and run three different solves with three different betsizes/trees and then i compare the Range-EV - is this the correct and simpliest way?

Thanks!

Yes, that is correct. And for measuring the EV, please use the overall EV for OOP, which can be found below the table at his very first decision in the tree. See the screenshot below.

First of all thanks for your answer!

One question for understanding: when i want to see the best Range-EV for the Button (=me), then i have to use the overall EV for IP and not for OOP, right?

Or must i compare both overall EV's from both players?


Btw: i've made a test today: 3 solves with different betsizes (but same Ranges) for BTN vs BB at a A72 rainbow Flop:
1) 33% Betsize with overall EV 6,62 for the IP Player
2) 50% Betsize with overall EV 6,65 for the IP Player
3) 75% Betsize with overall EV 6,50 for the IP Player
=> i'm not sure but can this minimal differences be right?

The easiest approach is to use OOP's EV, given that this is the entry decision for the entire tree. If you're looking for the best performance for IP, then you should simply look for the worst overall performance for OOP.

An exception to this approach is if OOP only bets (or checks) in his first decision. In this case IP's first decision is essentially an entry decision as well, and you can look at either OOP's EV or IP's EV.

Extensive calculation of IP's overall EV
It's also possible to extensively calculate IP's EV instead of using OOP's EV. For this, let's use the example below. Here IP has two first decisions, one with an EV of 12.67 and one with an EV of 17.89. The top line is reached in 35.9% of the cases, and the bottom line is reached in 64.1% of the cases. This makes IP's overall EV 35.9%*12.67+64.1%*17.89=16.01. This as opposed to OOP's overall EV, which is 13.99. And, as you may notice, the sum of IP's and OOP's EV is 16.01+13.99=30, which is exactly the pot.

This will always be the case when rake is 0. The sum of the overall EVs will always be the pot, given that this is what the players are fighting over. And as long as rake is 0, the EV for IP can quickly be calculated as being pot - EVoop. So finding the minimum for OOP's EV will also mean having found the maximum for IP. Rake is not a huge factor here, so in all cases you may just as well strive to minimize OOP's EV when looking for the maximum for IP.




Yes, as it turns out, there's almost no difference in performance between different bet sizes. No matter if you want to make tiny probe bets, or huge pot sized bets, it appears that there always exists a GTO strategy with a comparable performance. The same seems to apply to using multiple bet sizes; multiple bet sizes only perform marginally better as compared to using single bet sizes.

hi, Question about CREV special conditions...

If I choose Top 20% of hand, I will receive 20% of hands on the tree on this particular line. It will be the best hands.

If I choose Bottom 20% of hand, I will receive 20% of hands on the tree this particular line. It will be the worst hands.

If I choose FromTo filter and I enter in boxes 20 and 80, I will NOT receive 60% of total hands on the tree on this particular line. I suppose it will be the "middle" hands between the first two filter, but results are erratics.

Help me to understand this filter...

It means "Bottom x% to top y%".

So if you want to go from the bottom 20% to the bottom 80% then you essentially want to go from the bottom 20% to the top 20%. So enter 20 and 20.