Also just purely hypothetically and out of curiosity, say we removed the bet size requirements but made it a CAP game (which is a real version of poker that people play and often use solvers to study).

What is the lowest cap where you still would accept a hu challenge from a GTO solver based bot (it sounds like you are saying you definitely would at 100bb, what about 50bb? 20bb? 10bb?)

Also FWIW limit is a real game that is poker, the solvers would be happy to play you in that and again of course many limit players use GTO solver software to study.

perfect frequencies (equilibrium) have higher impact on EV then having more bet sizes. (unless human is indeed super balanced)
also many betsizes is extremely complicated to balance correctly.(not sure what kind of an impact that would have)
and even if you get close the solver will be >=1% of the pot better anyway very often.

tbh. Doug is of course one of the greatest players out there and has all of my respect

But ,with no disrespect, he is a bit outdated nowadays. He played Sauce Heads Up the other day (who is using solvers -PIO-) and he ended up admitting he felt out classed a bit and that he needs to study this "new strategies".

So I totally agree with vkartmann when he says:

Clearly having a closer to GTO approach is better than multiple bet sizings. And nobody uses more than 4 different bet sizes per spot, too hard to balance, no one would know how to work that around imo.

Yeah you can still probably win more vs some opponents by exploiting some spots, but studying solvers will also give you a bigger understanding of when you can exploit imo.

GL

As for today Piosolver edge or Simple Postflop stand alone is faster and better overall right now?

I think i'm asking the same?

I think there are other options to through in the mix now

what about Monker solver ?