For now, my current flop cbet strategy when OOP is to be polarized even when I have range advantage and only use the full range cbets strat when IP either in single-raised/3b/4b pot.

But I've seen so many winning regs from PG&C and HS threads that they're using the close-to whole/full range cbet (bc of ≤33% cbet sizing) on flop that they have range advantage either in single-raised/3b/4b pot. Because they're using this strategy it only means it's the higher EV strat, but I don't want to blindly incorporate the strat in my game (esp when I'm comfortably winning with my current OOP flop cbet strat, at the micros at least) without understanding the WHY of it.

So yeah, I want to know why it's the higher EV play.

if you play around with betsizes in solvers you will find that mostly the effect of sizing on ev is small. i think they are not playing this style necessarily because it is max ev in theory, but in practice it is easier to play, which is desirable oop with deep stacks.

how do you feel about your checking range? if you were playing against yourself, would you be able to exploit it with floats and overbets, taking freecards at the right times? imo it is very difficult to have a good checking range in that spot.

I don't have any solvers though (I know it's a good investment but I just can't afford it right now, I just rely in my RIO essential sub and off-table work with equilab and PT4), that's why I'm asking here hoping that someone can answer it

I'd like to think that I'm fairly balanced with my flop checking range when OOP (again without solvers, I have no idea if I'm even close to gto at all, but by balanced I mean that I have some strong hands in it that villain can't profitably barrel me off my hand everytime I check), but then again I'm playing micros where regs are not really skilled enough to exploit tiny imbalances in my range, maybe that's the reason why I'm comfortably winning.

But if what you said is true that the reason for them using it is to simplify their strat and not bc it's much higher EV play than my current strat, then it's good to know.

you can get gto+ for 75$ one time purchase, if you are anywhere near the limits where your question matters, it is certainly a good investment. fwiw i am not that familiar with 100bb+ ringgames, but i have been making considerations about betsizing for myself and those are my conclusions.

i don't want to imply that you are neglecting this, but deepstacked play is far more intricate than just having some strong hands and some weak hands to balance a range. players can minbet you, they can overbet, they can use combinations on the different streets. also boards can be wet so some strong hands can decrease in value and you might be capped later - there is alot of different ways a good player can extract value in position in deep spots. i think there is alot of merit in keeping your range together against good players, always keeping in mind you are not a solver but a human with limitations with regards to balancing.

maybe others with more knowledge of this format can help you out more.

I will look into gto+

thanks for the feedback ohly, i appreciate it very much

also there is a good chance Villain does not really know how to play agianst very small cbets. when you have decent raise/flat range vs 0.66psb and now you are facing a 0.25psb it is very likely you are not able to adjust your ranges here.

gto+ is acutally really good considering the price. though i personally prefer snowie over a solver when playing lower limits...

I think a lot of players use the "small size/high frequency" c-bet strat (sometimes called "range-betting") just because it's easy to remember. It doesn't necessarily have the highest EV.
e.g. In some 3-bet pots (like SB v BTN), the optimal strat is to bet BIG on some boards with a very polarized range.
You can "get away with" betting small, because a lot of players don't know how to exploit it, and they make mistakes like floating too much (or nowhere near enough), or they always raise with monsters, thus capping their calling ranges, which makes them exploitable on the turn.
One small point is that if you bet small, you can't be making a huge mistake, because you're only putting a small proportion of your stack at risk. It's easy to make a huge mistake if you bet big with the wrong hands. In effect, by using the smaller size, you reduce your chance of making a major blunder.

Thanks for the feedback guys.

I think I now get this concept completely and please correct me if I'm wrong.

So, when we have an equity advantage and we're IP BUvsBB or OOP SBvsBB (both single-raised pot), we can push equity through full range cbets because BB has so many weak holdings from his wide pf calling range that he is forced to defend vs our 33% bet sizing and it's very easy to put pressure on the turn with an overbet (on blank turns ofc) with our now more polarized range.

But in spot like UTGvsHJ where villain has much more tighter IP calling range (wc means he can easily defend vs 33% bet sizing), even when we have an equity advantage on certain board texture, we're better off using a polarized cbet strategy on the flop to start putting pressure on his good hands.

And if I understand the concept of pushing equity correctly, this also means that we can use full range cbets with smaller sizing in 3b pot when we have an equity advantage even OOP like in SB/BB vs BU bc villain will defend wide from the BU vs our 3b. And if the villain open/calls 3b from early position (UTG/HJ), even if we have an equity advantage, we're better off using a polarized cbet strat bc villain have a tight 3b calling range from that position.

Yeah, the above is more or less correct, just generally speaking, but you also have to consider the board texture, and how that affects your fold equity.
You can c-bet the flop at a reasonably high frequency when you have a clear range advantage, but it would be a big mistake to c-bet at a high frequency on boards where villain floats or raises very often.
e.g. If you're UTG vs a BTN caller, your range is doing pretty terribly on 875tt. (You have so many Broadways that totally missed, while villain has sets, overpairs, 2pr, and not much total air). Your range vs the BTN does much better on Axx and Kxx.

bvb is a bit dependent

on what? would you elaborate please?

You fell out of the sky into these forums with an Essentials membership, working with Equalab, doing PT4 work, while playing tons of hours in micro stakes NLH?

I would bet a lot of money you have a bright future!

______

1. Don't forget to take key notes in a refined way.

2. For your HUD:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HGy...0s&app=desktop)

3. Stick with RIO Essentials and your PT work.

4. Check out Hand2Note, for when you pump up.

SBvBB is by far the most complicated positional battle, and it plays nothing like other spots. Ranges are super-wide, and the BB does a lot of calling pre (unlike, say, the HJ or BTN) because he can close the action. It's hard for the SB to have a clear range advantage, and indeed the BB will often have an overall equity edge AND the positional advantage. This usually leads to the SB checking the flop a lot or betting small. As with other SRPs, it's usually Axx/Kxx boards that are best for the PFR, since the caller in the BB would often 3-bet his best Broadways and the big pairs of course. Boards where the highest card on the flop is 9 or lower tend to be particularly bad for the SB, as the BB's range will often have over 50% equity, and he'll float or raise the SB's c-bets at a high frequency.
An example from Snowie:
SB raises 3bb, BB calls, flop comes 744tt. BB's range has 52.5% equity, SB bets half pot, but only 9% of the time. (He can't rep many strong hands on 744tt). Even with this presumably narrow/strong range that SB c-bets, the BB only folds 30% of the time, and raises 36% of his range!
EDIT: On a 522r, Snowie has the BB only folding 6% (vs a quarter pot c-bet), and raises a whopping 49%.