is it possible to copy and paste strategy lets say for flop? example: i edited flop cbet range and i would like to see how GTO+ would exploit it, recalculate it with flop cbet locked and then iam interested how much EV it actually lose if GTO+ dont exploit but play first strategy when i didnt edit flop cbet strategy, right now only option i see it to open gto+ again and edit flop cbet again which is lot of clicking, in piosolver there is option for this for copy and paste range

also is there option to lock all turns and rivers for IP or OOP to play solved strategy and dont adjust? so lets say i calculate GTO strategy then i want to lock flop strategy for IP player to not be GTO and iam interested how much it lose if solver doesnt adjust but play strategy that was solved before on all streets, so it would assume he play GTO on flop

For this, click on the "Output" button on the lower right of the table and click on "Copy to clipboard".



We currently don't offer this.
I can consider it for later releases, but right at this moment it's not there.

somehow when i copy to clipboard i cannot paste it to other GTO+, i have opened GTO+ two times and i would like to copy strategy from one to other but it doesnt work, it work only if i do it in same GTO+ opened

This will be available in the next update.
I hope for it to be available in about a week.

Hey scylla,

I would like to have your thoughts on the discussion in the comments in this video on run it once.

Basically, in the video Saulo (using Piosolver) mentions that he likes to resolve the subtree starting from the turn to get a higher accuracy dEV for the turn & river strategy (in a shorter time).
Link: https://www.runitonce.com/poker-trai...r-gtno-part-2/ (you can read the comments even if you don't have a RIO subscription)

I am unsure if that is actually a good idea (which I explain in the comments).

And thinking about GTO+, am I right in assuming that it wouldn't have this problem (compared to Pio) since it already recalculates turn&river strategy on the fly when you navigate the tree (at least in basic storage)?

Thanks

In GTO+ turns/rivers can be recalculated whenever you want to.
For this, just click on the "resolve" icon.




More accuracy is always better (although from a practical point of view in most cases it probably won't make much difference). In GTO+ you can recalc turn/river situations to whichever dEV you like. The recalc will take the starting ranges with which the line is reached and figure out the equilibrium within the given dEV.

I haven't messed around much with tree editing yet.

Is it possible -- and how tedious would it be -- to enter different bet sizes for each different Turn card?

For example, if I have a tree with a single Flop bet size, four Turn bet sizes, and a single River size, would I "simply" delete three of the Turn bet-size branches from each Turn card?

How much faster it is GTO+ short deck version in solving assuming it is 36 card deck?

Currently the same bet sizes are applied for each turn. I would expect it to be very difficult to interpret a tree if different turn cards led to different actions. There would be a lot of hidden information in every tree that would be impossible to see without going through every turn for every line. Given that bet sizing has a nearly negligible effect on performance, I would expect it to be preferable to just use the same sizes everywhere, even if it were possible to approach this differently.

I haven't measured it, but ranges contain twice as few combos as regular hold'em. On top of that, there's fewer turn+river scenearios (528 versus 1176). Also, with fewer scenarios, the solves will be a bit less complex. So roughly I would expect it to be 4 times faster. I have just run a quick test and it was 7 seconds versus 33 seconds, which is indeed in that ballpark.

Scylla can we "play against the nodelock"? For example: we give OOP a fixed strategy with overcards (like 100% fold vs IP bet to represent villain is a "fit or fold" player) and then play against that "solution" IP. If not that's something I would be highly interested in on future updates. It's the best way IMO to derive heuristics on exploiting. Playing against a GTO solution won't help me if no one is playing that way to begin with (and no one does)

Yes, for this, enter the strategy that you're looking for with the editor. And then solve the tree. The "Play against the solution" feature will use the solution that is given in the tree.

Scylla that's awesome!!!!! Could this be "it"? Is this what I think it is? Finally an app that can train us in how to exploit specific opponent deviations once we nodelock them??? Please confirm me if I'm missing something...

It is basically GTO trainer.U solve the spot and u train that spot.

But can it train us on how to play against nodelocks? (Human models of opponents). I wanna make sure I got this right. When we solve for how to play vs, say, a villain who overfolds to cbet, now we can train for how to play vs that nodelock?

Yes, you can enter+lock a strategy, solve for it, and then play against that solution.

Hey scylla, I am in the middle of setting up a standalone computer entirely for solving purposes and was wondering, given I am using a different machine for GTO+ now, how to move my licensed product from current to new PC?

Thanks in advance for your help.

You can request a key for your new PC here: www.gtoplus.com/request-a-key
The form is automated, so your key will be sent to you within a few minutes of your request.

Should you not have received your key within 5 minutes, then a spam filter may have been involved.
In that case, please let me know and I will send the key again from an alternate address.

Hardware ID?
To get your hardware ID, start GTO+ and go to "register" in its menu.

Awesome, once the new machine is up and running I will request the key and install it on my new pc. Thanks scylla.

Hey Scylla is it possible to display the EV of a player as a % of pot instead of BB's? Just like equity is? If not, could that feature be included in the future? I think it would help a lot to speed the understanding of how different holdings (and ranges) over and underealize their equity

We offer a visual representation of this. For this, click on the graph icon below the table. Plot equity vs EV. The blue line represents what the EV would have been if it were purely based on its equity. The red dots are the actual EV. So it should be easy to see which hands overperform, and which hands underperform.

Amazing what you’re doing with this software, scylla.

I have CR-EV and will definitely buy GTO+

Suppose i’m playing in a game where villains can barely spell ‘game theory’ let alone try to use it (sharp cookies most of them, but yeah, gto not on their radar). Imagine I want to build what we might call an ‘old school’ CR-EV-style decision tree for looking at spots in that game. Can I do that in GTO+? Or do I need to keep CR-EV for that kind of thing?

Again, many thanks for the incredible work you’re doing.

You should be able to use GTO+ for this. First, create a tree with the tree builder (see video 3 here www.gtoplus.com/videos). After that, use the editor to edit villain’s range at various points in the tree where you feel that you know his strategies (see video 1 for how to edit strategies). You only need to enter the spots where you feel that you comfortably know his play, and leave the remainder unlocked. After that, run the solver to see how you should exploit villain’s mistakes.

Many Thanks, scylla.

Put another way, its not so much that bet sizing doesn't matter, but rather the solver is able to adapt itself to different sizing which has no overall net benefit to EV? The only net result is increased complexity in game tree which makes more difficult for humans to analyses? I'm still struggling to understand the bet sizing doesn't matter in GTO though.... If you only give it a large or tiny sizing, your causing the pot-odds to change, which has a relationship to equity, and this in turn has a relationship to the positive expectation of hands in your range.......... whats missing here....

Another related thought. If bet sizing doesn't matter, giving the solver the option to bet does right? As we would be limiting its strategic options. For example, not letting the solver donk flop would remove a branch from the tree, should we always give it all options, even if we don't think players do? Then re run the solution to see how its changed basis what we think a 'normal' tree should look like.

When we hear someone say something like 'I like a small sizing here so that opponents bottom pair continue" thats an example of someone focusing on the noise? If bet sizing is noise, whats the signal? How would you recommend using the solver to focus on the signal? cheers