I'm curious how the broader community balances range accuracy versus the ability to consistently implement that range's strategy in game, especially in context of multi-tabling.
E.g. LJ opens 2.25x in a 100bb cash game (50NL). The 3-bet range for the HJ vs CO is going to be slightly different as we have one more player behind to act and we may want to use a slightly smaller 3-bet size to protect against the risk of a 4-bet. On the other hand, while the actual combos differ slightly, the total number of combos 3-bet remains roughly the same, and we may be better off consolidating both positions into one range that we play identically post-flop in order to make sure that we're actually able to execute the strategy we studied in game. If we choose not to have a BTN 3-bet
How do we estimate the EV of playing a worse strategy better, and at what point is simplification unproductive?