Theory; When board textures will change rapidly on many turn and river cards the OOP should be more inclined to check the flop to prevent his range from being capped on future streets.
Correct?

Example; UTG raises, BTN calls. Flop is 58Qddx. UTG constructs a checkcall/checkraise strategy to keep our ranges intact on all turn cards and deny the IP's equity as well as generating lots of EV by their position.

This is tough one, but I'm going to say no. Another way of asking your question is "Should we be more inclined to balance on wet boards as opposed to dry ones?". I don't really see a glaring reason why having a capped range is inherently worse on a wet board compared to a dry one. We should of course strive to be somewhat balanced on both, but not perfectly balanced, as in our bet range is not a mirror image of our check range. Betting to the strength of our range is a priority.

The frequency with which we bet wet boards compared to dry ones is a different issue. It has more to do with range matchups than balance. Wet boards hit a preflop caller's range more often, and when ranges match up more evenly we should be more inclined to check. So as a result we're effectively balancing our ranges more, but its not for balance, its just a result of playing ranges correctly. I don't see a reason why two ranges that matched up evenly on a dry board would be balanced any differently than two ranges matched up evenly on a wet board.

Not really no, to both posts.


It's more of a realization issue than a balance or range disadvantage issue (yeah these boards might hit ip callers range more on certain boards, but the same thing also happens BvB where IP certainly doesn't have stronger range).

Think it like this, when the board is dynamic, getting the non 100% equity value bets in on previous street is not all that cool, when the texture will very often change the relative strength of your valuehand and turn ok valuehand into a bluffcatcher.

So like lets say you have a valuehand, that can bet flop with 80% vs calling range, and a brick turn with 70% vs calling range. So we are valuebetting 2 streets, yes. But the realization of our "valuebets" suck so much. You make a valuebet OTF with good equity, but like depending on the exact board texture, the "real equity" vs flop calling range might only just be like 50-60% due to getting ****ed up on so many turns + rivers and ending up to play a bluffcatcher in a bloated pot. So against a good villains that will make you pay on turns+rivers that change the handstrengths, making thin valuebets on earlier streets is not all that good, because when the boardtexture changes, our OOP range gets totally ****ed, and we end up with big range disadvantage, needing to check a lot and thus not easily realize the equity of our bluffcatchers.

I think I agree with what you're saying, but truly good (up to GTO) villains will equally make your life difficult on dry boards. Calling a flop with a draw and semibluffing turn is just something anyone can do. Like if we have AT on QTx board, lots of turns will be difficult vs lots of players. If we have TT on an A83 board, our hand is extremely easy to play turn against lots fit or fold players but still difficult vs good players who are capable of floating.

So if we ask the question:

Is 60% allin equity better on a dry board compared to 60% allin equity on a wet board?

Against an average player I'll concede the answer is probably yes, but vs a GTO opponent I still don't see a glaring reason why it would be. Though I'm not saying allin equity matches up perfectly with our actual equity. The playability of hands and positional advantage will certainly distort things, and I suspect it would have more of an effect on wetter boards. But compared to range matchups that effect should be very small with regards to effecting our actual strategy.

This.
It's harder to realize your equity OOP on dynamic boards, since they favour the player in position. If you're vulnerable to floats and bluff-raises, you can remove those options from villain's playbook by checking the flop.

That's basically what I was trying to say

I think I get the idea behind wanting to deny your opponent the opportunity to realize his equity, however I don't really agree with building a strategy that emphasizes this as the focal point of the strategy. I think any good strategy is built on value betting strong hands vs everyone as a default with the lead. Sure, it's sweet to mix in check raises with hands that don't mind free cards, particularly against opponents that bet too much when checked to. That is the exception to the rule though.

There's money in the pot and your opponent's cards have equity in that pot. You can't stop your opponent from making profitable plays. You just can't.

bet your equity and value, until he adjusts. if he implements a no fold strat. I still play my value hands and bluffs accordingly, I just assume he has a lot more hands in his calling range. if he raises then I tighten up my bluff and value ranges and check most flops to evaluate.

I'll try to figure out how much he is gonna put in the pot in these spots OOP and how often, so I can figure out how good of a hand I need and how often I should get in the spot an place bets to become profitable in the long run.