I recently looked at the spot JT4 rainbow UTG vs CO SRP. UTG will check 66% of the range which makes sense. Board is quite equalising but UTG can push a slight equity edge with his OPs. However after a CO 50% bet UTG never raises. Of course 50% not the size recommended in theory but it's one I face a bit in practise.

I would guess that most CO cold callers are weaker ( especially if they go 50% OTF) and will overstab this flop so check raising gains EV over leading and maybe xc.

My questions are why don't we play check raises on this flop? Is this a common characteristic of SRP OOP spots? Exploitativly is my assumption correct and is xr actually a valid adjustment in game?

It has to do with the composition of the ranges.




This is from GTO wizard. As you can see, CO actually has the nut advantage, because the high equity hands make up a much larger composition of their entire range. LJ has no incentive to XR because they don't have an equity advantage at the top of the range.

If you face 50% in partics that's not the even close to the range slover plays. Most regs don't have cold call range in this spot, unless there is a big fish on blinds, so you most likely playing agains a fish. So don't look at these seem for practical advice.

Also don't look at lines that solver doesn't take. Ranges are super narrow and there are some weird effects in thos spots.

If you look at the sim, IP stabs super polar in this spots. Even Jx is mostly check, vs very polar ranges you should raise very little or not at all like in this spot.

Is the solver leading strategy designed for this to be the case though. For example say we wanted to range check this flop. Then should we play check raises? Or is there something more fundamental about say equity switches on a lot of turns so we want to stay defensive for another street?

Like Haizemberg said, it’s more about the shape of CO’s betting range. The more polarised it is, the less important it becomes to have a raising range, since CO will very often bet the turn himself if you just call. So your strong hands don’t mind waiting till the turn to checkraise.

But if you expect your opponent to bet more mergy in practice (eg Jx, Tx), then it becomes very important to raise your strong hands now. Otherwise all of those hands will just end up checking back the turn after you call.

Well put. Thank you

This seems like a good place to ask my question rather than starting a new thread. When it comes to xr on flop or turn, what do solvers tend to say about sizing? Off the top of my head I assume it'll depend on factors such as:

- SPR, where higher SPR wants larger sizes and vice versa
- Board texture, where wetter boards want larger xr sizes to deny the equity of villain's IP flatting range.
- If we have the range advantage we xr more frequently
- If we have the nut advantage we xr larger

As a general rule my intuition tells me that larger xr sizes are usually better for the same reason that an OOP 3bet preflop needs to be at least 4x to try and make villain indifferent to flatting IP. Then again, if you believe villain is c-betting or stabbing too wide IP on boards where they don't have a range advantage, maybe it can be correct to xr more frequently but with a smaller size.

I'd love to hear others' thoughts on this to see if I'm on the right track. Thanks!

The simplest way to think about sizing is what hands you want to make indifferent to call or fold. If you are tarteging weak hands like A or K high with one or no over cards your raise size will be smaller if you want to put pressure on something that has more equity your size needs to be bigger. Ofc if you are going to raise bigger size your range will be more polar.

Example On K73r there are lot of hands that close to 0ev vs small raise (hands like TJ AT AJ QJ ect) so you see solver using small size on this flop.
On KJ3 now vs small raise there are almost no hands that are indifferent vs small raise, so we just go polar and raise big putting pressure on pp Jx ect.