I like to give numerical and % to a lot of things, poker hands not being an exception, I would like to give a player that has position on us as having sometimes as much as 30% advantage( depending on his skill level and understanding of boards/ranges) with that said, if we are a LAG and are comfortable playing many hands, would it be incorrect to still 3 bet our standard hands we would otherwise( and then play accordingly in those spots)but this time 3 bet ( from the blinds) but to not give away so much disadvantage just check 100% of all our 3 bet hands from the blinds? MY thinking is that way the villain gets 0 info from us in all such hands giving us some disadvantage back? Punctuation and what not isn't a strong suit so sorry.

Doing anything 100% of the time in poker isn't the way to go. Would you continuation bet after 3b AKhh on a Kx2h8h? How about a JhQhKh after you 3b 78dd. Analyze the situation and the opponent then make the most informed decision. Poker is not rigid. Saying you have a 30% advantage while in position isn't the way you should quantify things. You state that the villian gets zero info but you also get zero value from hands you should be value betting. Maybe you have a 50% advantage in one situation vs a player but only a 10% advantage vs another player. Not even sure if this makes sense but you get the point.

Yes I do I was just wondering if it could ever be a huge leak doing so.

There's definitely some textures you should check with 100% of your range in specific spots and also turns/rivers same way.

Plenty of spots where doing something with 100% of your range is fine.

that's my feeling also. I should've been more specific in the post but when I said check 100% of all flops we 3 bet from the blinds that's vs very good opponents. vs fish of course it's a mistake

I'm no theory expert.. but to me we'd be better off betting 100% of our hands then checking 100% if we 3 bet out of position no (assuming we have to check our bet 100% no inbetween). Checking always to me is a huge leak because 100% checking means we are basically just creating big pots then relying on catching cards or making difficult reads. Betting 100% at least gives our opponent a chance to fold (and us to take down the pot) when we miss, which statistically speaking should happen more often then catching in the long haul.. to both hero and villain

The fact that we miss making a pair on the flop( with 2 random non pair in hand) 2/3 of the time is the reason why I think checking 100% as opposed to betting 100% in this spot vs a good player makes more sense. Good players are just going To be able to make us fold by the river to often because by c betting the flop 100% of the time after we have already 3 bet the pots are already decent sized and we just don't want to be playing huge pots oop

I think this would be a good way to burn money.
Although there are definitely flops where you should check at a fairly high frequency, when you 3-bet out of the blinds the GTO c-betting frequency overall is gonna be something like 70%. Failing to take the correct action so often is going to be horrendous for your bottom line. As rightlight said, it will be better to c-bet 100% of the time than 0%, as the former is much closer to the optimal frequency.

I think this would allow our opponent to play very well against us. I wouldn't bet the flop 100% either, but instead I'd just try to differentiate between junk, bluffcatcher, weak draw, strong draw, monster draw, thin value, and monster hands and play accordingly.

In before and after the mixed strategy guys. To them I say this:

I'll never be perfectly strategically consistent, so the hands on the margins will be randomized somewhat.

You should be focusing on positions/stack sizes/texture/preflop action/ to determine whether or not you should be betting or checking and also to what sizing.

Post some hands for help.

Nice initial thread question and follow up questions.

I like that you asked a simple question about a possibly important idea that is on your mind.


Answer: Big mistake to do this 100 percent of the time, in my opinion.

You do conceal some information.

But there are too many situations where you give up too much.

I am sure other NLH players that are better than I have elaborated and more discussion will follow.

If you have specific hands, please do not be shy about adding those but I like your initial sincere Big Picture question.

Ty everyone for the feedback, yea I def just go on board textures as I would from any other spots on the table I just wondered what other players thoughts were, from my experience it also seems to be better to bet more and continue on the turn as well because bad players do seem to think floating is pretty important but never know what to do with their air when we continue on the flip side better players either seem to float way to often or never at all. I play mostly 2/5 and 5/10 though so who knows

70% oop?

Doesn't seem right no?

Do you think it should be higher or lower?

When I looked at some Snowie scenarios about a year ago for 3-bet pots between the blinds and LP, the average c-bet frequency OOP on the 20 random flops I studied was 68% (SB vs CO) and 74% (BB vs BUT). I think 70% is around the c-bet frequency of most regs in those spots, isn't it?
In single-raised pots, I don't think c-betting OOP should be done at such a high frequency. In fact, it might be GTO to c-bet less often than 50% when OOP in single-raised pots. In the micros against fit-or-fold set-miners, however, you can exploitably c-bet more often.

your value hands are strong pairs, which will hit te board 10% of the time. Which means you'll have a 1pair hand 90% of the time.

Playing small pots means there are large stacks behind, you'll get barreld off your hand so often or make incorrect calls just because villain realised his eq because he even got odds to do so.

3betting preflop would decrease stack sizes, so you can get it in OTF or OTT. that way you protect your one pair hand and get max value from these hands.

as you are talking about playing from the blinds, definitely 3bet and even a lot more. Playing OOP is a lot more different and generating folds preflop is easy money. By making the pot bigger your stack to potratio decreases, and there will be less manouvrability postflop so his positional advantage decreases as well.

Thought it might be a bit lower but I guess since you have the stronger range it makes sense

I guess also the flops that you would c/f a lot on don't flop that often

Like when we hold ak suited and the board comes 768r..?

You reference a specific hand and don't say what preflop action is, so no.

AKs is not a range.

Here's an example from Snowie that surprised me.
Hero opens UTG, gets called by CO.
Flop comes JT4r.

Snowie's c-betting frequency is.... zero. UTG has plenty of hands that have equity, and it's profitable to bet them, but the GTO solution would likely involve checking at a very high frequency, possibly with the entire range.

In 3-bet pots, checking at a high frequency would be sub-optimal on most boards, partly because of the extra dead money sitting out there waiting to be picked up, but there might be some boards where maximising EV might involve only c-betting about a quarter of your range. One such example might be KJTr in SB vs BUT. The reasons are not simple, and I don't fully understand them myself. Ranges can be very complicated. (On what on the surface looks like only a slightly different board KT3r, Snowie would c-bet 80% after 3-betting in SB vs BUT. The fact that hero and villain could both have flopped the nuts on KJT, but only one player can have the nuts on KT3, evidently makes a big difference. Go figure.)

J104 surprises me as well, although I'd check there frequently as well

I checkd my cbet stat in 3bet pots and it was 63% overall from the blinds

Lower then the aforementioned but still a lot higher than what I feel it would be since I feel like I check a lot

Don't think it's too surprising since most of snowies range from the CO in that spot is JJ TT so the frequencies at which he has the nuts is a lot higher I guess?

What is snowies calling range in CO vs. UTG? I just tend to x/r or x/c a lot of J10X boards as PFR OOP.

It's been a while since I used Snowie, but it's something like QQ-88, AQs/AJs, possibly with some combos of AKo/AQo flatting occasionally. It's only folding 99/88 to a c-bet.
Snowie plays so many Axs UTG that it actually has less than 50% equity on that flop vs the range it puts CO on.
(EDIT: It has less than 40% equity on boards like T96tt, another flop that the CO isn't folding, so again has a very low c-bet frequency).

Most real players obviously call pre more often and stab JTx when you check to them, so check-raising your sets, overpairs and draws can be very profitable.

Does snowie not flat any SC there in the CO?

As for your last point---YES, very profitable.