To update the entire database, edit one of the trees as you see fit.
After that, go to "Run solver" and click on "Rebuild database" (or delete the database, and build it again from the edited tree).

It's however not possible to only re-solve a part of a tree, given that the other parts of the tree need to be in equilibrium with it.
So the entire database would need to be solved again.

OK, let's ignore the database aspect and assume an individual sim.

It's possible to re-solve an individual turn using this button and rebuilding the tree from the given turn card onwards:

It's also possible to re-solve a certain turn branch by using 'Edit Tree', clicking one of the arrows corresponding to a given permutation of flop actions, editing the turn sizings for that branch, then clicking this button:

Neither of the above require re-solving the flop, and as a result are much faster than solving from scratch. Accordingly, my understanding is that given an already solved flop, it is possible to edit turn parameters and resolve all turn branches without having to redo the flop computation. Is this correct? And if so, is it possible in GTO+?

Scylla, how are you?

I wanna ask you if you have any plans for add some filters features. Like:


1) Filter per suit (like Pio) and add backdoors Fds Sd etc.
2) Filter more than 1 group of Hands (right now only can select one with right click). This feature its pretty valuable to look some freq.
3) Any form to look the two range in the same windows.
4) In the advance Tree Builder have the "D" (Delayed Cbet) like oop has with P and C .. for example on the turn i put 3 sizing 75 120 and 50d. 50d only appears on the delayed line but not in the 2 barrels.
This is awesome to create more fast tree and avoid mistakes on add/delete lines on the tree editor

The best tool for GTO+ so far:

Turn export and Nodelock.. This work its awesome and easy to use.

Scylla please keep these updates in mind, there are other things to keep in mind in the future, but this would already be a big step forward.

something nice to see in GTO+ ​​in the future would be to be able to see the EQB (Equity buckets) of both ranges.

In case you don't know, I recommend that you see some ideas of the GTOWizard platform.

I expect a sincere response from you, the truth is that GTO+ ​​is a great tool and has a lot of potential ahead!

I have Pio and GTOW too and honestly i use Gtow for the filters and analysis features .. but GTO+ have a lot of potential to be the best and intuitive solver on the market if you considere this points that i shared above.
<3

if you do something in mind, please
let us know ... will be good to all users have any idea of what releases come in the future.

Thanks

Point N°4 its for IP player

There's no dedicated function for performing this set of operations on all trees in a database.
We can consider it for future releases, although it might be difficult to set up from an interface perspective.

Ok, I will consider it for future releases.

Hello scylla,


what is the code to change the size of the matrix?



Thank you

I take this opportunity to ask a second question, is it possible to have equity in statistics here:

A dragbar is drawn to the right of the matrix (provided space is available for enlarging it).

Ok, I'll see if we can add this.

"A dragbar is drawn to the right of the matrix (provided space is available for enlarging it)."


This is a nice feature, however, when you choice the next action, the Matrix change the size, can you add "lock" te maximun size possible for the node? (its obv when we have more sizings OTT or OTR, the matrix will be more smaller than OTF, but it missing the "maximun" possible size also).

Question:

When analyzing a database, is there a way to display the EV of each individual action?

For example in the picture below the EV is for both decisions, but they each have their own EV. Also, how is this EV calculated? Is it a weighted average of each decision?



Thanks.

The matrix will be drawn smaller if the required space is not available.
So it will attempt to draw itself as large as has been requested, but will override this if it turns out to be impossible.

This is currently not available, but I can consider it for future releases.
As for the EV, are you referring to the EV below the table?
This is a weighted average, including card removal effects and any other relevant factors.

Hello, Scylla. It would be great to add the following functionality: equity buckets for IP and OOP player which can be adjusted by filters manually (for example, 2 pair+, top pair+, any pair+, draw, trash).

Something similar is basically already possible in FlopzillaPro, but I will consider it for future releases.

that is not true tbh... each time a sequence is changed it shrinks, and does not maintain its "maximum" possible scale. We have to go back to drag the bar.
Also, when we load any sim, the same thing happens, you have to drag the bar in each sequence or new sim to get its "maximum" size.

Example:
i drag the bar on the flop to max size.
OTT will be smaller automatically, but if you "drag the bar" again, it can be enlarged to its "new" maximum allowed size.

Could it be considered in the future to make the GTO trainer window separate so that you can see the sim simultaneously?

Ok, I'll take care of this for the next release.

I will consider it for future releases, although this may turn out to be rather challenging.

Someday will be possible to drill current decision in database mode?

Enviado de meu motorola one hyper usando o Tapatalk

Suggestion for update. when locking hands post flop it would be great if we can assign percent, Ect AK spades bet 80% check 20%

We can look into it, but this is a feature that may not run entirely smoothly, particularly if "Basic" storage is used.

This is already possible.
To set up a mix, click on "Current selection".

Hi,
I've been comparing my sims with odin sims. Disclaimer, preflop ranges are not precisely the same, but on the first glance they appear similar. Results differ significantly, mainly odin seems to be utilizing a lot more small bets.

I realize that multiple equilibriums are possible and it's fine, I'm just curious if there are significant fundamental algorithm differences (don't really care about this) or I'm missing some part of the gametree (this I do care about).
thanks