I'm really surprised at how passive PIO plays OOP - it flies in the face of everything I've learned. in COvBT situations, the highest Cbet% i can get PIO to commit to is 35%. I've even found situations where CO has an equity advantage, an EV advantage and a nut advantage - eg on a KsQs2h board and even here PIO only Cbets 29% of the time given the assumptions I've plugged in. It's not even check-raising much, only 2.6%.

This has surprised me, as everything you learn when you start out is about how you should play aggressive. You make it harder for your opponent to realise equity, give yourself another way to win pots, force more mistakes and make it difficult for villain to flat you wide preflop. Even with range advantages, PIO is checking OOP.

I'm not sure at 50NL and 100NL whether it's worth trying to implement this style and effectively having a Cbet OOP% of around 20% (or potentially going for 0%) or continuing with my current strategy, which people don't seem to be exploiting. It's a good opportunity to work out how to adjust after flatting IP vs villains who Cbet wide (normal amounts).

1. Should I be going for a 'normal' strategy or trying to get closer to PIO in these spots, checking frequently. IE, am I actually giving up a tonne of EV vs the player pool?

2. At what point do you think people start exploiting a 'wide' Cbet strategy (say 50%-60% OOP, which I thought was normal and good)?

3. Are good regulars/professional cash game players really playing this passive? I've never noticed the best players in the world failing to Cbet super frequently OOP.

I'm only looking from a cash game perspective - I can see why this wouldn't translate to tournaments where stacks are shorter so 3b value ranges are wider and calling ranges are more capped. It's just I'd recently started to feel really good about my Cbetting game and now PIO is telling me I'm a mile off.

Allow it to c-bet a lower sizing.

I think it makes sense. co vs btn in a single raised pot should include lots of checking because the ranges are much wider than utg vs hj, for example, where I would cbet at a higher frequency than co vs btn.

That doesn't mean that I'm focusing on a specific frequency though. It's just that I have middle or bottom pair much more often co vs btn. Check please.

for utg vs hj, doesn't hj have a very strong cold calling range meaning utg should check a lot?

Firstly, I'll say that I too was very surprised when I first started studying more advanced theory/strategy a few years ago, and learned how much of the "ABC" advice I'd been taught was basically just wrong. I was particularly excited when I first used Snowie, as its style of play was totally alien to me, and that led me to discover many improvements I could make to my game.
They don't need to exploit it. You're just hurting yourself by playing hands in a way that doesn't maximise their EV, and actually makes it easy for your opponents to respond correctly.

Just consider how easy it is to play when you have total air in position when you're facing a large c-bet. You fold, right? The decision is easy. But what about when villain checks to you? You actually have to think "Should I bluff here? What am I repping? Will I barrel the turn?". When the OOP player checks, it gives the player IP a chance to make a betting mistake with many weak hands. The IP player doesn't make as many calling mistakes with those bad hands if you bet into them.
FWIW, I don't even c-bet more than 50% overall, let alone OOP. Most players (especially in the micros) still c-bet OOP way more often (and with sizes that are too big) than they should in theory. You can do better than they do, by playing closer to optimally. C-bet OOP at a low frequency and for small sizes and you should see an improvement in your winrate. Bluff inducing and catching correctly is just as important as value-betting.

Don't you have to factor in though if the villains you are playing against are not defending against your cbets enough then you are not wrong to be cbetting more than the equilibrium strategy?
Of course in that case you could be exploited but if villains are not adjusting then you are not wrong to be taking that line. If villain doesn't defend enough then the maximum exploitive strategy is to always cbet.

I suppose this could be true, if the ranges assigned were sufficiently tight for the hj. I don't know what gto preflop ranges are, but here are my default ranges for online games:

utg open raise 3x: 55+, A2s+, ATo+, K9s+, KQo+, QTs+, J9s+, T9s, 98s, 87s.

hj coldcall: 66-JJ, A8s-AJs, AQo, KJs+, QJs, JTs.

Maybe that's looser than what you were thinking, but I'm just trying to get the ball rolling here.

A8s cc in MP seems like quite a mistake

Yeah I was just thinking that after rereading my post. Any other hands I should drop?

If villains are passive loose then checkin oop becomes bad. They will call all streets A high and check all air.

I wouldn't call any of them with 100% frequency.
Play also changes with short stacks behind
Play also changes with UTG having very deep stack

Vs loose passives out of position, the last thing I want to do is bloat a pot with hands like these:

100bb no limit holdem 4 handed:

I raise co, btn calls, blinds fold

flop a) A6s on Q63

flop b) JTs on KT2

flop c) K7s on 678

etc.

I think those are all check and draw at a good price or fold at a bad price heads up vs loose passives.

I think what you're missing is that they'll also check those hands back and let your middle pair improve for free and get to showdown much cheaper than those same hands would cost vs a more aggressive opponent.

----

vs better players, you effective odds to get to showdown are much worse, so I'd check even better hands than those mentioned above.

I also check less potential bluffing hands vs the better players, particularly the weak draws in my range.

Yeah if there are shorties waiting to jam behind us then we should be much tighter in the hj than I suggested.

If utg is deeper I expand the suited connectors as long as the game isn't too aggressive.

That may well be true, but since OP is using Pio to study, I presumed he already knew how to beat pond life. Tools like Pio are useful for learning ways to gain marginal edges against regs.

Also just 3bing and not calling is OK too

But we don't "theoretically" cbet a smallish 1/3 sizing on boards like KQ2r etc. ...?

---

OP i'm wondering same thing as you in regards to PFR play OOP in a SRP 100bb deep, and ik for sure it depends on villain's raising frequency that's why you can usually bet range vs most of population at micro stakes/loose passives etc.

I don't quite understand it either... cause friend told me on boards like T92r we should x most of range stuff like KK here and just be x-raising and x-calling a bunch more then we bet in theory, i think looking at what the nash raising frequency is in this spot then comparing it to raising frequency of pop/villain is the way to go but not sure...

OOP in UTG vs CO, for example, I see no particular reason to bet big. It's a good flop for UTG's range, so he could bet at a pretty high frequency (in comparison to something like 875tt), but betting big would just fold out all the underpairs in villain's range. e.g. Versus a 1/2 pot bet, CO should probably fold jacks. Vs a 1/4p bet, he calls with JJ-99 at least. You don't really want villain folding JJ when you have KK/QQ/AA/KQ etc in your range.

Betting small OOP is part of a good strategy.

...

Yeah i get it on boards like 866x or Axx, Qxx, 725r etc... and that's too general to say lol?

Also yeah arty 1/2 sizing+ on KQx or 2 broadways flop should be good, prolly larger vs fish

Note: you can fix IP's strategy against a bet. This lets you adjust for opponents.

Don't know if I agree. Against good players, you are bloating the pot and just asking them to float you for cheap, where they will make your life miserable on future streets.

I'd rather employ a strategy of biggish bets and checks. Bigger bets give you more FE, force them to float for more, or to define their hands.

for a worse price

with stronger hands

-With a small bet, you're only folding out their complete junk. that doesn't do much for us.

-They will have strong hands in their range regardless.

-Being able to define villains hand is good for us.

Phunk, you're making coldcalling with suited connectors and pairs more profitable for the in position player with such a sizing strategy. Basically, I would use the following strategy vs you:

1) play bad preflop
2) get there
3) stack you

If you don't let me achieve goal (3) then I'm gonna raise your flop bets often with the many strong draws that I'll flop.

I don't think that's always true and would expect many more players to make a folding mistake vs a smaller sizing than a calling mistake vs a larger sizing.

Plus you screw yourself for multi street bluffs because of spr considerations on future streets and the composition of villain's range. Sorry if we were only talking river here.



But is the information worth the additional price you pay for it (rhetorical question)?