Since opening such a wide range should c-betting frequency be reduced?

What do you think is a solid c-bet frequency?

BB also defends with a much weaker range...

My concern is getting to the river with too much junk.

Trying to maintain a strong frequency strategy like outlined in the book 1%, I just can't see how betting 70% of a 70% opening range on every street is possible.

It's not optimal to bet that often. Miller's/Janda's numbers were based on a "best guess" at what optimal play looked like, but solvers proved them wrong.

Be aware of range advantage on certain boards (such that some boards have a higher betting frequency), but I think you should aim for frequencies that are a lot closer to 50% on every street on average. Exploitatively, something like 65/45/40 might work best in the micros. Higher up, it might be more like 55/50/45.

Thanks for your response, getting direct answers relevant to what I'm asking is very appreciated.

My main interest is c-betting frequencies, and I would like to ask if you wouldn't mind maybe elaborating on this statement:

About c-betting in particular can you be more specific as to why they were proved wrong and in what ways? What was wrong about their assumptions, or the accuracy of their methods? How does the solver deviate?

I would like to know what factors were considered when Janda/Miller made their guess. Like, what were their assumptions, and how did they suppose they were making accurate assumptions?

How much of that was based on player experience in a realm of non-perfect and non-robotic players? Might there assumptions and methods still prove accurate in a realistic player pool?

I believe solvers tend to cbet less frequently. The proof is empirical evidence as long as you trust the solver's methodolgy which is probably reasonable depending on which solver you choose.


I would assume these would be covered in their literature. It's probably difficult for someone to paraphrase them correctly when the source material should be readily available, though admittedly, for a cost.

If I had to guess they probably did some statistical analysis and worked with toy games to arrive at those numbers.


I would doubt they had a particular player pool in mind when offering the advice but don't know for sure. In theoretical analysis strategies are typically known to both players, but not the exact hand in play.

Janda laid out some maths (including multistreet value:bluff ratios) in his first book which sounded very reasonable. But solvers have a more accurate grasp of how ranges play against each other at equilibrium.
If you c-bet 70%+ of your range on every street, you have lots of low equity trash in it. Not only does that mean that a villain can exploit you by slowplaying his monsters, in order to get value from your bluffs (which would do better by not betting), but he can also exploit you by check-raising, as he knows it will be impossible for you to continue at a high frequency, as your betting range has so much air.

Put it this way, imagine villain knows your strat is to c-bet 100% of the time a la Barry Greenstein. Villain has some trivial exploits against such a strat: Never fold a made hand; slowplay some monsters on the flop, in order to pick up more money from a turn barrel; check-raise a lot of air to win the pot immediately.
Solvers produce ranges that can't be exploited so easily. Their ranges are balanced, which means that a player that uses them is "unpredictable" to some extent. His betting and checking ranges are hard to beat. (Indeed, many hands will be mixed between betting and checking).

In some (nitty/fit or fold) games, it's still very profitable to bet at high frequencies, because villains don't "play back" at you. Weak micro players see the flop with weak ranges and then check-fold a lot, for example. A strong player, however, sees the flop with a solid range, check-raises appropriately, and doesn't overfold post-flop, so you can't barrel him to death. Against a tough player, you'd just value-own yourself, or be over-bluffing, if you triple-barreled at high frequencies.

Very insightful ^ thanks