Hi,

Suppose we are 100bb deep in the big blind and we 3bet preflop the button's minraise with a depolarized/continuous/value oriented range (~14%) like 99+, some good Ax, some facecards, some connectors and suited connectors. The botton called.

From a GTO perspective, on the flop, why is it more +EV to have a flop leading range? Why don't we obtain a higher EV by transforming our leading range into a check-raising range? This way, IMO, we allow him to bluff some % of the time and we dont lose value vs his mediocre hands because those wont call more then 2 streets anyway.

GTO is talking about situations where our opponent can not unilaterally increase his EV, even if he knows our strategy. Suppose you do go ahead and c/r the flop 100% of the time. How do you think I might choose to play against this action? In particular, do you think I am going to be bluffing you in position knowing that you are c/ring every single time?

Any time you are making reads like "he won't call more than 2 streets anyways, but does call c/rs" or "he bluffs some % of the time" you are not trying to play GTO, you are trying to play exploitative poker against these specific reads you are asserting he has (whether he actually has them or not is entirely different).

I dont think you understood the question:

I was asking why would a GTO strategy have a leading range at all? I didnt say anywhere to cr 100%. I was asking why wouldnt a GTO strategy prefer to check-raise those hands that people usually lead with.

Sure. Don't change the spirit of my response, namely that you are making comments regarding exploitative poker while asking for a GTO answer. FWIW, coming up with a GTO strategy, under your preflop assumptions, for how you want to split up a leading, c/c, c/r, c/f ranges is a really big question. It is easy to see advantages and disadvantages to both lines, it is a question of carefully balancing these. And there are obvious ways people adjust when you eliminate one of those possible actions entirely (in this case you are eliminating all leading lines, which I mistook for always taking c/r lines), but figuring out optimal GTO lines is really hard. However, when you talk about c/r for value from mediocre because they don't call 2 streets of barreling...this isn't GTO it is very specific exploitative play.

Perhaps I will phrase the adjustment this way: if you know that you can always see the turn for free, if you wish, would you call more or less preflop?

I was implying that we should be able to extract those 2 streets by leading turn + river when he checks back flop.

This is the kind of answers I was aiming for!
Are you saying its a bad thing for the BB (who 3bets a value oriented range) when SB calls more preflop because he is able to see a lot of turns?

Think about what hands most prefer betting and see if you can find a reason to check them if opponents are atleast attempting a semi optimal response.

The perfect example hand imo is a hand that can extract X streets of value but is at the same time vulnerable to villains checkback range. A more concrete example:

99 on K83r,

This is a hand that profits by betting flop cause its likely still reasonably well vs his perfect calling frequency, furthermore if we check its semi likely to get outdrawn by villains checkback/stab range IP.

It is extremely unlikely that not one hand in your range doesn't profit more from betting then checking.

Because our range is so much stronger than BTN's.

Our range, 3 betting from the BB, is much stronger than the BTN's who is opening wide and then called, which removes all of his strong 4b hands. Since our range is so much stronger than BTN's, and will remain much stronger on all flops, we can value bet liberally which also allows us to bluff more. Checking gives up this advantage entirely and gives the weak range the chance to take a lot of free cards (which is great for him) and also value bet when he does make strong hands.

Certain boards will be better for our range than others, and on certain boards it's likely GTO to cbet 100%. But on many boards GTO would have to utilize both cbets and check/raises.

OK.
So your arguments are basically that we allow SB to see lots of turns and realise some % of his equity with his "air" (that otherwise would fold to a flop lead) and his draws.

But a decent % of these hands will/should bluff/semibluff the flop in attempt to balance the value range and a large % of them (excluding draws) will/should fold to the check-raise... so i basically estimate that the overall EV will be higher when we check raise despite some % of the time he will check back and realise some % of those low equity hands on the turn.

For almost every statement in poker, there are counter statements. So if you think he will respond by betting the flop a lot, you lose when you c/f (since you told me you were not doing this 100%) more often. When you c/r, yes you pick off his bluffs, but you also give him more value against his value hands. So GTO is going to balance all these factors. You are only every presenting the one side though.

When you eliminate leading as a possibility, villian can profitably include more hands than he could before preflop. I don't know what the hand is, but perhaps 76ss was not profitable before, and now that you give him the free turns when he flops only a 3 flush it becomes profitable. You are trying to get it both ways, saying that him including more hands somehow profits you because you are bluff c/r vs them or something. But from a GTO perspective, villian is calling with whatever the optimal frequency is, so you simply are unable to profit when he makes a +EV response to your refusal to lead.

Since his range is so much weaker than ours, he must check back a very high % of the time. He is not going to have many hands that can value bet (primarily because of the threat of being c/r'd) so few bluffs are needed to balance. He will be seeing lots of free turns in position.

Not only does he get to see free turn cards and realize equity that would have to fold to a bet; but you are also missing value to all the hands that would've called a bet with <50% equity. Not to mention missing profitable bluffs.

Always checking when you have the stronger range is just a fundamentally flawed idea.

If I 3bet you from the BB and then checked blind when you called, would you be worried that I'm an expert GTO player, or laughing at what a fish I am?

He bluff raises some % when you lead too. Not as often as when you check, but for a bigger bet. If you lead you can catch those bluffs. If you check raise... those don't exist.

Some of your hands are strong enough to lead with but not strong enough to check raise with.