A
Aleh00
Rising Star
Bronze Level
So, I'v been doing some solving and studying GTO. My choice of solver is GTO+. I have solved situations for 3bet pots, single raised pots and part of 4bet pots. All of these have been solved for each position. I know the limitations and the fact that playing GTO does not equal to most EV gained. Thats not what I'm asking here. Previously mentioned situations have been solved for 3 bet sizings (33%, 67%, 140%), no donking (Im aware that there is boards where you can have donking range) and 1 check-raising size (75%). I still use 3 sizings on turn and river.
After solving, the solver obviously for many situations showed varying bet sizing and frequencies, which in many boards are pretty much impossible to remember or execute. I started playing around and editing the game tree on the flop by removing one or two bet sizings on different flops. I noticed that in some cases reducing the bet size to only one sizing made negligible loss to EV and in some cases reducing even gained some EV. I know that there is many boards you should have more than one sizing. I have not just blindly stared at the EV. I have tried to understand why the solver plays as it plays with the given ranges involved in each situation. For some flops I have left 2 sizings, since I realize that you preferably need 2 sizings for protection, getting more value etc. This has been my approach on simplifying game trees to be more pragmatic while playing. All im trying to do is understand the reasons behind solvers outputs and to create "baseline" for myself to fall back on while on playing, which still would be GTO approved.
After all of this long introduction. My questions is that am'I heading to wrong direction by reducing bet sizings on different flops by reasoning that it doesnt lower the EV that solver spews out? What kind of a techniques you guys have used to simplify GTO to be more usable while playing? I would love if you could point me to right direction if my approach here is wrong. And ofcourse please rip my approach to shreds if needs be
Oh and btw, solved for 100bb effective stack and 25 flop subsets.
After solving, the solver obviously for many situations showed varying bet sizing and frequencies, which in many boards are pretty much impossible to remember or execute. I started playing around and editing the game tree on the flop by removing one or two bet sizings on different flops. I noticed that in some cases reducing the bet size to only one sizing made negligible loss to EV and in some cases reducing even gained some EV. I know that there is many boards you should have more than one sizing. I have not just blindly stared at the EV. I have tried to understand why the solver plays as it plays with the given ranges involved in each situation. For some flops I have left 2 sizings, since I realize that you preferably need 2 sizings for protection, getting more value etc. This has been my approach on simplifying game trees to be more pragmatic while playing. All im trying to do is understand the reasons behind solvers outputs and to create "baseline" for myself to fall back on while on playing, which still would be GTO approved.
After all of this long introduction. My questions is that am'I heading to wrong direction by reducing bet sizings on different flops by reasoning that it doesnt lower the EV that solver spews out? What kind of a techniques you guys have used to simplify GTO to be more usable while playing? I would love if you could point me to right direction if my approach here is wrong. And ofcourse please rip my approach to shreds if needs be
Oh and btw, solved for 100bb effective stack and 25 flop subsets.