You would need to remove the lock and solve the tree again.
So if you want to make experimental changes to a solved tree, then it's probably best to do so in a separate savefile.

In GTO+, when setting up a tree - and it asks for % of pot - can I also use something like 3x,4x,5x, for example? Specifically, when talking about raise sizes, the multiple of villain's bet is much better for us to use than overall % of the pot...imvho.

Yes, you can also use 3x,4x,5x type of input for raises.
The advanced tree builder should accept this input.
See the screenshot below.

Go here for an extensive list of all available options for the advanced tree builder: https://www.gtoplus.com/treebuilder/

And here is a video on the tree builder: https://youtu.be/yzROoc5iBec

Awesome. Thank you!

Hello, I have a simple feature request.

I think it would be really useful to display the tree name in the "Database distributions" screen. Often I am creating databases full of trees with the same board but which vary in bet sizing options, starting ranges, node locks, etc. In the database I give each tree a distinctive name, e.g., b25_range, x_range, but when viewing the EVs these names don't appear so it is very difficult to actually compare EVs of different trees.

An alternative would be to display the EVs of each tree in the database creation window.

Ok, I'll make a note of this, and we'll see if we can make some changes here.

scy how are you?

Could a simpler way to apply suites to filters be implemented?

I think that a pio style viewer (even simplified) is much more comfortable when using it

This can be used in both ways:
* only take into account the suites that can be chosen
* ignore the selected suit (right click cancels the suit)

It only has 8 quadrants, the top ones would be the high card, the bottom ones the low card (this is used to make combinations or for example if we want to see how an AxTd offsuit plays instead of AdTx.

https://gyazo.com/64477189f8bea2fd0b3bd2c60a1603e3

We offer a suit selection box, that allows you to apply filters for any suits that you like.
For some reason uploading images isn't working for me today, but here is a link.

Scy, thanks for the response.
Yes, i use a lot the box, but it can greatly improve its usefulness (since the selected method is not practical for the use we use in the solver)
I hope you can see the video link I showed you

Ok, we will consider it for future releases. These two methods seem to be two variations of the same theme though. Our method allows for more precise suit selection, the other is slightly faster if you want to achieve something very specific, but there's also suit selections that can't be performed with it.

exactly!
Precisely what I'm saying, that for the use given to it in a solver, it is not necessary to choose the "perfect" suit combo and the solver itself is complicated, imagine creating strategies based on precise suits xD...
It is more than anything to more quickly visualize strategies that will be linked to the morphology of the flop / turn (in terms of fds or not possible, BDFDs, value bets with suit blocker or not...etc.).
Using the filter should be easy and quick to implement.

In the solver it is used a lot to see the composition of bluffs of 1 flush blocker or value bets when you do not have X suits.
Hence the importance of being able to "cancel" x suits or choose it

Ok, we'll consider adding the other approach as a quickselect option.

scy how are you? There is something that happens to me very often and takes up a lot of my time editing trees in complex scenarios.

There are conflicting interests in using the go allin if push is less toggle.

Example: oop vs river bet, I would like to go all-in as long as my SPR is 1 or less than what I have when I also have the R50% option. (I want you to remove this option)

But being an aggressor in the same spot (XR B B) I would like if I reach the river with SPR 1, to use allin sizing and another sizing of, for example, B33. (not to be deleted)

In complex trees, I spend a lot of time "debugging" raise lines that I don't want to be there, but if I build the tree upside down, I would also spend a lot of time browsing to add sizing that could be missing. (That's why I always choose the option that is left over because it will be better than the one that is missing).

Can you think of any solution to this?

Scy, how are you? There's something that often happens to me, and it consumes a lot of my time when editing trees in complex scenarios.

There are conflicting interests in using the "go all-in if push is less" toggle.

For example, out of position (OOP) versus a river bet, I'd like to go all-in whenever my SPR (Stack-to-Pot Ratio) is 1 or less, but only if I also have the R50% option available (I want to eliminate this option).

However, when I'm the aggressor in the same spot (XR B B), I'd like to use an all-in sizing if I reach the river with an SPR of 1, as well as another sizing, for instance, B33 (without eliminating it).

In complex trees, I spend a lot of time "debugging" raise lines I don't want to be there, but if I build the tree in reverse, I'd spend a lot of time navigating to add missing sizings (that's why I always choose the option that remains, as it's better to have it than to miss it).


Imagine creating a tree with 3 sizings for the flop, turn, and river, and 2 raise sizes; this generates a large number of nodes leading up to the river for check.

Can you think of any solution to this?

Ok, I'll see if we can add some custom code for this.
It's a bit tricky though, given that in some spots, B33 will be very close to all-in, and actually going all-in would be preferable.

Yes, it has happened to me that when assigning, for example, 2 IP sizings (B75 B150)
If I hit the river with an SPR of 1.80, I have the 3 options, and the reality is that I would prefer to have B180 and B75.
Pio has a feature that works well, I'll leave it for you to see, it works differently than the algorithm that GTO+ ​​uses, then tell me if you can interpret it

Hi Scylla, I have a database of sims over a flop subset and I would like to have the GTO trainer drill turn c-bet opportunities over an entire database. I believe (I hope I'm wrong) the trainer can currently drill a turn c-bet opportunity only over one tree with a specific turn card so I am trying to find a work around for this. I am thinking of taking a solve for a specific flop and creating new trees at the turn c-bet node for all turn cards. This would result in a database of all combinations of turn spots for a specific flop such that the trees begin with a turn c-bet opportunity. I can repeat this process for all of the flops I am interested in and merge all the databases together. So running the trainer over this new database is essentially drilling turn c-bet spots over the original database.

I do not know anything about scripting in GTO+ but I would like to know if I can automate a process. Can scripting be used to "pop" trees from the tree navigator using that up arrow symbol?

I want to "pop" the trees on a turn c-bet opportunity for all turn cards and put the trees in a database but that would be tedious.

We're looking into drilling versus the database for v155, so it's probably the most straightforward approach to just wait for the next update.

Ok, I'll take a look at it tomorrow.
It may be possible to use the code field here (https://www.gtoplus.com/advancedcode/) for users who want more customization.

Thanks, the recent updates are great and I look forward to v155.

hi can u implement a slider like pio to adjust one players frequency in a linear fashion (for exploitiv node-locking)? Or export/import of a strategy at a given node, would be helpful as well.

You can export/import strategies between nodes by going to the output icon.
There click on "Copy to clipboard"/"Paste from clipboard".

Any ETA for V1.55?

No, it's not possible for me to provide an ETA.

If I disable auto detect of memory customization, I understand that this may lead to gto+ malfunctioning or crashing. Can it, however, damage one's laptop? I have 16gb of ram and at times it's said 10gb seemed like too much until I just turned it off and now it works. I just want to make sure that I'm not doing something that overburdens the PC in some way, shape, or form.

Thanks