He means with a specific hand

Example, you have AK in a 4bp and board comes A74r, rather than c-betting your AK 100% of the time you should pry check sometimes to balance your x backs with QQ/KK etc.

No I literally mean, bet your whole range or check your whole range.

in some spots thats ok, but most of the time thatd be quite bad.

About a year and a half ago I was having a little PM chat w fossilman and asked what ge does as preflop 3 bettor w KK on A72 when he's OOP.
I had been checking it but that was getting me into tons of trouble. Its so tough to pkay the hand once youve capped your range out of position on w 3 streets to play.
He said something like "in a GTO sense youd likely check and call flop. But he said he actually cbet his entire range in practice because it was just too tough to balance in that spot.
Thats one example.
Ive also heard a lot of coaches say similar things on training videos in certain spots where your range is just so strong that you may as well bet the entire thing, or when so much of your range takes option A that opting for option B is almost like flipping your hand over.

My guess is, if you find yourself in a lot of spots like that you maybe arent constructing your ranges correctly and/or you simply need to take some % of the hands that seem like clear value bets and check them or some that seem to have good SDV and use them as bluffs, or whatever the case is. Honestly though im not sure on these concepts.
Hence my last couple of threads

Poker players often argue about whether you should bet or check KK on Axx, and it many spots it's probably true that both sides of the argument are correct, because GTO likely involves a lot of mixing with mid-strength hands.

FWIW, if the spot is 6-max 100NL, and hero 3-bet BB vs BTN's 2.5x open, Snowie c-bets 88% of its range.
It bets AJ or better 100% of the time. It bets TT or worse 100% of the time (all unpaired hands are bet as bluffs). With hands between AT and JJ, it uses mixed frequencies. In that particular spot, Snowie doesn't have a single combo that it always checks, but KK is the closest at 86% check, 14% bet.

In a single-raised pot in position (e.g. BTN has KK on A72r vs BB), there are quite a few Ax combos that are always checked back, but perhaps surprisingly, Snowie likes betting KK in this spot 66% of the time, with the range as a whole betting 78% of the time.

I presume that other "solvers" would produce similar results if given the same pre-flop ranges that Snowie uses.

It's pretty hard to make sense of post-flop mixing, it has to be said, because there are just so many combos to balance, and things like the presence (or not) of backdoor draws add to the complexity.

if opponent doesnt know how we play, whats the difference between 90% checking and 100% checking?

sinse we got KK only ~1:200 hands it would take a huge sample for anyone to find out?

Thanks a ton!
I need to just buy some of this software myself.

Actually I'm not surprised but glad to know for sure. Intuitively I feel like checking back KK in pos is simpler than OOP because you give your opponent an entire street less to beat your range up and you prob induce more air ball bluffs.
OOP it makes it so tough cause there's an entire street of additional pressure to show the hand down.

I feel fine checking back in pos and calling turn.

OOP I just wince after checking. It's maybe just as well to turn the hand into a bluff/thin value bet as to play "check and guess".

Bump...
There is a lot of good stuff in this thread regarding which line is the most +EV when we hold a marginal hand/bluff catcher also trying to not to get exploited/over-bluffed by opp. throughout the hand.

1). Im sort of confused by doctor877 comment to bet or x everything and skip a game tree branch (what does this mean?)?... Explanation please :>?

2). Is this correct thinking in that... knowing your opp. turn and river tendencies and generally having a plan for the turn and river are factors in whether or not we want to bet or marginal hand/bluff catcher or x it OTF? ^Obviously this board is so WA/WB but what if it was As9sTc (two tone) and we hold JJ-KK vs. an opp. who will get out of line/put us to tough decisions later OTT or OTR?

3). Regarding 2). does opp. bluffing frequency/whether he is over-bluffing matter is it a thing that villain can be bluffing more OTF then compared to OTT or OTR like a "one and done" type line (say we are OOP w/QQ on As9sTc)? But even if villain is over-bluffing a lot OTF and we say call, then he barrels OTT now what (same scenario w/QQ)?

4). Also arty mentioned having range advantage etc... so the stronger range we have here the more we should fold our bluff catchers like JJ-KK on Axx because we have way better hands we can continue with here/we are uncapped (like JJ would be the bottom so we could fold it, but w/KK we can maybe call depending on villain?)?

If we check back some Ax and KK-JJ on A84, it's usually with the intention to call the turn with most of our one pair hands (we checked back the flop to induce turn bluffs that we intend to call), but we could certainly jettison the bottom of that range on the turn, and fold even more of it on some rivers. e.g. if villain never bets the river with worse than top pair, it would be ridiculous to call with twice with KK. If instead he always bets flush draws that he picks up on the turn, and always bluffs the river with missed draws, then KK would likely be a call on both streets. It kind of depends how many Ax combos we check back with, and how balanced/unbalanced villain is on later streets. If we have many bluff-catchers that are better than KK, we can fold KK without worrying too much.

Hm... So i finally understand a "bit" of this...

Bumping this to ask...

So how the hell do we come up with a certain strat that will be the most profitable/+EV logically in a certain spot vs. a specific villain...?

For example doctor877 mentioned just checking your entire range or betting your entire range OTF to not get exploited easily here by capable villains on later streets, but i understand that this strat isn't the most profitable vs. majority of villains (esp the villain's that aren't going to exploit you/are incapable of EVER exploiting you here in this spot).
^
This video...?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNEo1QYYOeo

---

Splitting and protecting your range will obv be a profitable strat vs. a fit-or-fold villain @ lower limits so yea...

In this situation villain would have a much wider range since he was closing the action and hence got a discount preflop. (If he was e.g the BTN his calling range wouldn't be wide since he is not closing the action and can face a squeeze from blinds or have to play MW pot so its more profitable to 3bet and iso hero with most of his range). In our scenario hero would like to c-bet very often with a very wide range, because he is facing a weaker range and villain is OOP and can't float or raise hero cbet profitably. Consequently hero should bet small ,something like 40%-50% pot. He doesn't want to value cut himself when he goes for thin value and to loose min with bluffs. Anybody agrees with this line of logic or is it too simplistic?

I think utg betting with QQ there vs a good player in the big blind would be optimistic at best. There's value in that QQ, but its value is tied up in winning a showdown unimproved. So I'd definitely check the flop vs all but the loosest of opponents with that QQ from utg in an attempt to get one step closer to showdown.

cbetting 100% on this board with the way ranges are in this spot isn't a bad strategy