Quote:
Originally Posted by scylla
You can either entirely remove the two unused bet sizes from the tree, and rebuild the database from the edited tree.
Or edit individual trees in the database, and use the "merge" feature in the editor to merge any actions as you see fit.
The problem with the merge is that if I have 2 bets with a large gap between them, it would be a "mistake" to merge them.
Example:
B30 is used 30%
B50 6%
B75 36%
Eliminating options we lose the report inside the solver of the DB.
Merging the 2 options does not end up being optimal, because the adaptation of the other player to the new frequencies / sizes would be missing.
So neither of the 2 cases would solve this problem within a database.
What it proposed was to be able to select the merge of 2 or more betsizes to only 1 and solve the spot again (canceling the other options).
If for example I merge 2 bet frequencies to a larger size, it would be an exploitable error, because in theory it should up the % checking range.
This is solved by simply leaving the bet node that we select, deleting the others nodes.--- but if we do this, the whoel DB data is lost.
By being able to resolve after merging, this should be resolved.