GTO+/CardRunnersEV?

Hi, I'm not very new using solvers, but I'm new at drilling spots, anyway, I'm saying this because I could be doing something wrong..

I've found'out that when we let the solver plays against itself automatically, it generates a hand history, BUT, there's one big problem, specially when you want to compare the GTO results in many textures, using the subsets flops, the problem is: the table is ALWAYS small blind vs big blind.

So, when I've drilled Button vs Small Blind, the button became Big blind and the Small Blind remained Small Blind, It makes sense because the button is the In Position Player. HOWEVER, when I've uploaded the hands to Pokertracker 4 and filtered "Continuation Bet", it cames nothing, because the "Button" was identified as Big blind, so, he can never Cbet a flop.

Am I doing something wrong?
Is it possible to specify the "real positions"?
Because it would be way easier to filter spots and get the heuristic just using the tracker to actually see the hands that check raised a continuation bet, or probe the turn.. but because of this, it's very confusing.

Thanks in advance!

Tl;dr

Solver is always big blind versus small blind, it ****s up the pokertracker when I drilled Button vs Small blind, because the tracker doesn't see the possibility that the Big Blind was in fact, the Button and Lead Agressor Pre flop.

Ok, can you send an e-mail to support through our contact form: www.gtoplus.com/contact ?
We'll see if we can set up a rough feature for you, that allows you to set player positions.
If we can get everything working correctly, then we'll include it in the next update.

I would say a similar function to what Mates. said (thanks Mates.) but for remaining stack maybe (not sure if it makes a difference)? I agree though the approaches are similar if the starting stack is used and renders the function redundant but unsure if it makes a difference if it is for remaining stack

Furthermore, I am trying to grasp my head around this, can you explain this further please?

"So, for example, the starting pot is 10, and your starting stack is 90.
You want to push all-in if your stack is 60.
That would mean that the pot at this point would be 10+30+30=70.
And you want to push if your bet is less than 60/70 = 86% of the pot.

Let's call the starting pot P.
The starting stacks S.
And the desired stack size D.

Then you would need to fill in D / (P + 2 * (S - D))."

Lets say the pot 5, effective stacks are 90.

When building the tree, a bet of 45 occurs at some node because of the inputs in the settings but I want to push all-in instead of making the bet of 45; I want to push when the bet is equal to or more than 40% of my stack, how would the formula work?

Not sure if I am being clear again this time

The approaches are not fully interchangeable, and there's no way of converting our method into the other method.
We use the "smoothly" approach, so that, when the players are near to all-in, they size their bets, so that the final two bets are geometrically sized.
To me personally, this seems far more logical than to blindly make bets, without looking at the remaining stacks, and suddenly push all-in when a certain threshold has been reached. Our approach is basically the same, however, ours activates one bet earlier, so that the final two bets make logical sense. That being said, if people want this approach as an alternative, then we can consider it.

okays, please consider this function, thanks Scylla

Thank you!!

I've just send it the email!!

Yes Scylla,

pls consider adding some function as Mates. has already suggested; I can't tell you how many hours I spent fiddeling around with code/sizes, so my sizes stay but also there a no "non sensical" raises, e.g. after betting flop, stacksizes are 70bb and i want to have now 10bb and 25bb bet, but if i bet 25bb, villain will have raises to like 60bb and then the 70bb allin. Now if I change the code, it might occur that one of my turn sizings gets lost, and now IP is raising all in only and no nonsense sizing, but ya, now my sizes are messed up. I know of at least three of my friends that are also dyingly waiting for such a feature, so PLEASE do consider it 😉

Ok, we'll consider the other method as an addition. Looking at the interface, I think that we can pretty easily offer some sort of toggle for the "Add/go all-in" slider button, so that you can either configure it for pot or stack. I think that we'll improvise a rough internal beta on Monday (right-click the button to switch, or something along those lines) and post a link here, so you can test to see if it works as intended. We'll then create a more user-friendly version for the actual update.

Ok, we'll take a look at this on Monday, and set up a rough feature for you.
If everything works out, then we'll add it for the next update.

Hello, Scylla. I couldn't find my question, but I apologize if it has already been answered.

Is there any way for me to solve a hand or even a subset of flops and apply a general nodelocking to all turns and rivers (regardless of what they are) at once?

Example: we solve the flop K62, and then we want to access all turns and rivers with a nodelocking where the villain will overfold by 5% on all turns and rivers, regardless of the cards.

Thank you.

For this, you can use incentives.
Click on "Special options", select the tab "Incentives", and apply an incentive to the desired action.
The incentive is entered in the form of a dollar value, and can be applied to all possible turn+river runouts (or, if you prefer, also to a specific runout).
In the screenshot below, I have set that folding should be overvalued for all turns+rivers for the amount of $1.
It's however not possible to set a fixed % value for overfolding; it can not be predicted in advance to which extent the incentive will result in overfolding.

Scy can you add "ban suit"? example with right click? I think it's worth adding that function, thanks!

Ok, we should be able to add that.

Ok, here is a link to the rough internal beta, as mentioned previously in post #14356.
In this rough beta, if you select "Go all-in if push less than X% of pot", it will actually be treated as "Go all-in if X% of initial stack has been bet".
Please confirm that this is what you were requesting, and we'll add it in the next release (with dedicated buttons).
www.crevfiles.com/tmp/GTOv169.rough.beta...

It would be great if GTO+ ​​had the addition of a preflop trainer. Please consider this possibility.

Hi Scylla,

I just had a look and I think this is the feature we were requesting. I just want to further ask if initial stack is stack from node 1 or start of street; so for example if this function was used on the turn does it use stack starting from turn or starting from flop?

Thanks

It should use the starting stack from the flop.
We have tested for this, and it seems to work, but please let me know if you find a spot where this isn't the case.

Hi,

how to get Equity Realization on GTO+?

If you click on the "Graph" icon in the lower left of the table, then you can plot "Equity versus EV".
The graph will contain a blue line, that shows what the EV would be based on equity.
Hands (represented by red dots) that are above this line will perform higher than they would when based on equity.
Hands that are below the line will peform below expecation.
You can mouse over the dots to see which hand they represent.

Hi Scylla,

I thought about it a little bit more and I think current stack should be used instead of initial stack?

For example:

On the flop the action goes bet->raise->3-bet

stack sizes starting on the flop are 90, threshold set at 45%
bet:5
raise:15
3-bet:45

The threshold at the 3-bet node uses the stack size 85 after the bet: 5

I think this reflects real life more as usually? people consider what they have behind instead of what they have at the beginning?

Another thing is for example:

Initial stacks are 100

When you get the river with a pot of 40 and you set the threshold to be 40%, when you bet half pot you will go all-in instead under the current method, and I think its not the easiest to go through every node to check to see if the threshold not applied or check to see if the threshold is applied and adjusting it because one doesn't want it to apply.

What do you think?

Thanks

I think current stack is more useful but maybe others want initial stack, and in the case where some think current stack is better and some think initial stack is better, can you offer both current stack and initial stack? Hopefully it is not to much to ask

Thanks

Personally, I would like the current stack. I would prefer to make a decision of going All In or just bet/raising the turn, depending on the size of my Turn stack.

In this approach, it should be initial stack.
It means going all-in once the stack-to-pot ratio drops below a certain threshold.

For example, let's say that you set the value as 60% of initial stack, the pot is 10, and starting stacks are 100.
You will now go all-in once the threshold is passed of the pot being 90, and stacks being 60 (or in other words, once the ratio drops below 60/90=67%).

My only problem with this approach is that it would make much more sense to simply set the stack-to-pot ratio as the boundary.
So, you could set that the player should push once the remaining stack drops below 40% of of the pot.

The disadvantage of setting the boundary as a % of the starting stack is that if the starting pot is 30, stacks are 100, and the threshold is 60% of initial stack, then you will now push once the stack-to-pot ratio drops below 60/110=55%. So, in other words, this method is inconsistent between different starting ratios of stack-to-pot.

Having said the above, I think that we'll add an additional option, to set the all-in as a function of the stack-to-pot ratio.
To me, this threshold would make much more intuitive sense.
You can basically instruct the tree builder to push once the final bet would drop below a certain %.

SPR option is something I like and want but another option I also like and want, and I believe some others like, is the current stack approach because there are situations where the action goes bet and raise and the bettor is thinking about what is behind and not what the pot is to shove or not I think even though it's calculable I believe

When I was testing the beta, there was two situations I encountered with initial stack and therefore prefer current stack

The first situation:

Flop-
Initial stack: 100
Pot: 20
Stack threshold: 40%
Action goes bet pot and call

Turn-
Pot: 40
Stack threshold: 50%
Action goes bet 75% pot, if the threshold uses initial stack and it is set at 50%, the node is set to shove 80 instead with no bet 75% pot node; so if initial stack is used and set to 50%, one is always shoving 2x pot. Instead, the intention was to have a node of betting 30 with the option to fold whilst leaving 50 but shoving when 40 is bet, which I think is a reasonable

I do think initial stack is also useful in some situations such as the flop where it is reasonable to shove when your raise is 40% of initial stack of 100, but I do think some situations, such as turns, current stack is more intuitive than using initial stack, one will have to go through every turn part of the tree to check if the tree is built the way one wants it to be built if initial stack was used

The second situation:

Flop-
Initial stack: 100
Pot: 10
Stack threshold: 40%
Action goes bet pot and call

Turn-
Pot: 30
Stack threshold: 50%
Action goes bet 10 and raise to 40 but because the beta uses initial stack, the node is set to shove 90 instead with no raise to 40 node.

Here I wanted to shove if the raise is equal to or more than half my remaining stack of 90, and I believe it's fairly reasonable to raise to 40 here and fold with 50 behind but the beta shoved instead because initial stack was used. Obviously I could adjust the threshold here easily because I set it up simply but for more complex trees it would not be easy to go through every node to check if the tree is built as one wishes

I am not sure if you are considering implementing current stack but I think some people will like and and want it too, and, if it's not too much to ask, I actually will like all three SPR, currently stack and initial stack, though I think SPR and initial stack are convertible based on your post

Furthermore, I think found a bug that I am not sure if you have seen or not:

When I enter two sizes: like 10% and A and set a stack threshold, the beta shoves only and doesn't create the 10% bet size node

Please let me know if I was being unclear and thanks Scylla

Is there anyway to copy monkersolver strategies to GTO+ seamlessly?

I have some multiway monker sims that I want to further analyze using GTO+