I've been trying to develop a coherent strategy for responding to being raised.

I'm currently playing micro-stakes no limit full ring or six max.

One possible approach is to fold everything that doesn't have at least a 60% chance against the other players raising range. So if a player was raising 10% of hands you would only play AA, KK or QQ

Probably three betting with AA, KK and just calling with QQ

A possible problem with this approach is that the blinds would make it unprofitable.

AA, KK, QQ are only 1.4% of all possible starting hands so we can only expect to get them once every 71 hands this means that in a six max game we need to win at least 18 big blinds every time we have one of these hands and are raised and 12 big blinds every time we are raised in a full ring game. This isn't sounding like a profitable strategy?

think my maths is wrong in first post.

other player is raising 1 hand in 10 so if we always folded in a game with 10 players on average that would cost us: 1/10 * (small blind + big blind) = 0.15BB

but one time in every 70 times we are in this spot we will have something we can play that has a 60% or better chance of winning.

so if the raise is 3BB we will win 0.6 * 4.5 = 2.7

so 1 time in 70 we win 2.7 BB and 69 times in 70 we lose 0.15

giving an average loss of 7.65

so we need to win an extra 7.65 BB to break even if we only play hands with a 60% or better chance of winning.

I know this is a simplification but it seems a non trivial problem.

is it 1 in 70 or 1 in 7 we have something we can play if we are only playing 1.4% range against 10% raiser?

I dont know if this may work, but it s definetely not the optimal playing strategy. Maybe it could be good for a robot tough. I didnt go through the maths. But any average player will notice how tight you are and you ll never win more than 3 bb per big hands, unless there s an exception. But you point that you re for micro stakes which could mean weak players tough. But you should definetely consider ways to put in other big hands, small pairs to see a cheap flop, and put a blind stealing strategy tough, and I guess your robot could do a good job. Consider stack sizes too. But as I said, the best is just to learn how to play poker.

It's far from an optimal strategy (it's way too tight and robotic). If you really want to use a simple system based on percentages that give you an edge, it would be to play about half as many hands as the PFR. e.g. If he opens with a 10% range, then you can play 5%. If he opens 20%, then you can continue with 10%. The worst hands in your range in both cases would have close to 50% equity.

To be frank, though, I think you should search for "poker course" or "pre-flop hand charts" and learn how to play properly, because a very basic and nitty strategy is usually a losing one, especially in the long run when your opponents work out what you're doing.

Sorry, i want to correct my previous answer. Your strategy doesn t work at all bc sometimes you will also lose with your big hands. And even weak players will happen to make 2 pairs or better. You may not see when to control de size of the pot and fold your big hand. And because you may he too hungry to compejsate for the bkinds you paid, you may feel hungry to drown yourself when it s time to avoir a dangerous spot. Depending the stack size you play you will just lose more on those spots, tough you will lose less often. But the amounts you lose and the blinds wil not compensate for the small pote you win. I say small pots bc you will have so much of a tight image. Dont try to simplify the game too much.