The export will only work for one of the active GTO+ windows (the first one that was opened).

I have just checked, and over here I can export from v156 to v211.

A requirement for exporting from GTO+ to FlopzillaPro is:
1) Both programs use the same port number under “Configuration->FlopzillaPro” and “Configuration->GTO+”
2) FlopzillaPro needs to be open on your computer
3) FlopzillaPro needs to run on the same computer as GTO+. If FlopzillaPro is detected in GTO+, a green circle will be displayed in the lower left of its interface. See the screenshot below.

Should your issue persist, then try setting a different port number for both programs under item 1).
You will need to restart both programs for the change to take effect.

Scylla

The drill line that has been selected is Check-Bet-Call -> Check-Check, whereas the displayed line is Check-Bet-Call ->Check-Bet-...
So, judging from the screenshot, it appears that the wrong line has been selected.

I have tried with a different tree over here, and did not experience a crash.
So the issue may be dependent on some tree-specific properties.
Is it possible for you to send a savefile to support?
If the issue is reproducible, then we'll take care of a fix.

Hey scy,

maybe it's just me being dumb, but does GTO+ have the option to show EQR (equity realization)? I know that some solvers have it, for instance, in the picture below, the OOP player has KT (2 Pair) on the flop. The Potsize is 16.5bb and the Equity for KT is 83.9%, which means the EV should be Equity*PS = ~13.84. Now as there are several streets to come, obviously the hand will over or underrealize its equity. In that case, it shows EV of KT = 28.5, which means it will overrealize its equity with ~205%.

If this is not already an option, could you please consider adding it?






Oh and could you make it so, that we can click and lock more options here:





Cause right now, I am only able to click "Entire decision" OR one option like Bet 5.4. But I want to have it like 5.4 AND 11 but no Check or All in for example. That would be awesome!

Equity realization is simply EV divided by pot.
You can see equity realization by going to graph output, and plotting Equity vs EV.
Here, a blue line will be drawn that indicates how much the EV would be if it were based on equity.
Mouse over any of the dots to see the corresponding hand in the table.

Why is the range that has 44 in it losing equity here when it turns quads, but the range that doesn't have 44 gains equity?

No filters are being applied. The range with 44, and the only range that can turn quads, loses equity if it does.

Flush draw lose value because the board pair ?

Again: Range turns quad 4's but there are still two 4's remaining in the hotness chart.

Yes, but if the board pairing with a 4 gives range 1 quads (which it does) it only gains value from all of range 2's flushes and boats, right?

Even with GTO+...it acknowledges that range 1 is the only one that can turn quads here, but yet the range as a whole loses equity on any 4, dropping it down to about 30% from ~33%. Why?

I guess scylla's partying it up tonight. Is the answer here that even though 4444 is only in range #1, it comprises such a small part of range #1's total combos that it actually winds up helping range #2 on the grand scale?

See, the equity matrix acknowledges that 44 is quads here and has 99.86% equity.

But when we look at the hotness scales below, 44 is only giving the range ~50% equity.



How is this possible?

Here's another trend I see: The solver chooses a ton of overbets if you let it. Example:



OOP basically checks range and then the 2nd most preferred sizing for IP is to bet 125% of the pot. I'm sure it would bet even larger if I allowed it to there. Is this really a thing? Why is the solver doing this?

Pot sized bets on the flop, too. It loves them.

Yup. OOP checks and then IP prefers a pot sized bet and is actually ok with a 200% pot sized bet.

Here, again. OOP checks and then the preferred sizing for IP is 125% pot.

Pot is 6, stacks are 100. Is this the problem? Am I setting up SPR's incorrectly?

Ok, so here I put in 47.00 for starting stacks with a 6.25 starting pot and things look much more reasonable. In this case, I'm trying to sim a 3b pot at 50nl. Is this now accurate?

So, hopefully someone can follow my thought process here (I know) but I think I finally have this right for the most straightforward 3b pot we could set up, using big blinds and not currency. So, both sides start with 100bb's in this case. Adding in the blinds and what the 3b + call from RFI equals and you have a pot that's roughly 20 bb's and stacks that are roughly ~90bb's. The IP pot sized and overbets just dropped off the table in this scenario. Is this finally accurate?

Thank you in advance for anyone who helps me understand this.

edit: Oh, and I disabled "with only 2 bets left, get the money in smoothly" since a tutorial I came across told me that this will overwrite my bet sizing strategy and just attempt to set things up geometrically.

So, now I did 13 for the starting pot and 44 for the effective stacks to simulate a 3b pot heads up to the flop at 50nl. I think that's actually the most accurate one. Confirmation beyond appreciated.





Once again, gone are the jackhammer bets on the flop.

****. I forgot B.5 in the advanced code line. Running again.

I would need to know the exact ranges, but I suppose an explanation could be that 44 on a Q43 board is already basically the nuts.
There's 3 combos of 44 in the player's range.
Once the turn is a 4, the hand 44 is still the nuts, but you have dropped from 3 combos of 44 to 1 combo of 44.

Other than that, it of course depends on the performance of the non-44 hands.
You could for example check how their equity changes by removing 44 from the player's range.
I have tried to copy the hand from your screenshot, and in my case the equity for the non-44 hands dropped from 30.5% to 27.6%.

Hi, scylla.

Eq. graph report disappears in maximized FlopzillaPro window at 2560x1440 resolution. At 1080 it is ok.

....
oops, wrong thread

The Flopzilla window is not intended to be maximized.
It works on my own computers, but I can imagine this going wrong one some screen resolutions.
We can look into this for future releases, but for the moment, if you want to resize the FlopzillaPro window, then use Shift+Mousewheel.

Oh, thanks. I've found it also works if i magnify the window to 120% before maximizing.

It would be nice if you opened up a Discord channel for GTO+ so all of us could talk directly throughout the day. I can certainly understand if you don't want to get involved in that but I just thought I'd mention it since this seems to be the direction a lot of the newer products are going.

I want to build a computer specifically for running the solver and building huge databases for every flop and spot. What hardware should I be looking for?
What processor is the best/fastest?
How much memory and what kind?
Is a video card important?
Anything else important?

I'm a bit clueless about computer hardware specifics for running solvers, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance!