Since the IP coldcaller's range will be tight (assuming he's not a fish w/ loose range), I don't think cbetting range for 1/3pot will yield the best result (since villain's range don't contain many weak hands that will fold to 1/3pot + he's IP, unlike in BvB where both ranges are wide so we can still range bet on many boards even OOP). So it's either we use a range check strat or a mixed strat on all boards. I know mixed strat is the higher EV, but since I'm only human who can't memorize all the correct freq, I'm thinking of simplifying my strat on flop by range checking on all boards. My question is, is the EV loss of not using a mixed strat negligible?

Yea I would think not having a betting range would lose enough EV that you shouldn't do it.

It would be very exploitable. It's better to even just randomly bet some hands/check some hands.

I guess it depends on how you define "negligible".
Some hands benefit so much from protection and from fold equity that they should be c-bet OOP at a fairly high frequency (in some cases 100% of the time). Your overall strat might be to only c-bet about 25-30% of your range when OOP as the PFR in an SRP, but you often want to bet some weak/vulnerable made hands and some weak draws, purely because check-calling them won't be as profitable as betting.

ok that makes a lot of sense (esp about the vulnerable hands that need protection)

arty, what's the worst kicker we can cbet OOP? i mean, let's say on K72 flop and we have AK-K9s, what tp hand would you check?

also, is there a board where we should definitely range check? i'm thinking of board like 567ss UTGvsBU...or we should still use a mixed strat on these board textures?

A K72r is one of the few boards where you actually can be c-betting quite often. It's a very bad board for the pre-flop caller, as he often has very few (or even zero) top pairs, and only one set (77), whilst you have all the AK and KK+. I usually bet KJ+ for value on that one. On something like KT8, by contrast, where villain has a lot of draws and more sets, I'm more likely to check KQ and worse Kx. I'll have 88/KT/T8s in my value range instead. (I don't have 22, K7 or K2 on the K72 board, so KQ/KJ are much higher in my range on that one.)

I'd be range-checking, or at least checking at a very high frequency, on boards like 864r, 853r, 752tt, 663, as these are the boards that get floated or raised a lot if you c-bet. Look for the boards where you don't have second or bottom set. Those are pretty bad flops for you.
On something like 986tt, you can still bet your sets and TT, A9s/T9s/JTs, and some NFDs, but a lot of your range will be check-folding. It's similar on 765tt. Bet your sets, NFDs and straight draws (inc pr+SD like 88/99), but check your big overpairs and non-nut draws pretty often.

If you want a really general strat, then c-bet quite often on dry Axx/Kxx, but do a lot more checking on boards where the highest card is a ten or lower. 9-high and 8-high boards are probably the worst for you, but it kind of depends on your opponent's strat. Some people are still calling on the BTN with the smallest pairs, so you still have some fold equity vs those players on boards like T85. Against a tight button who never calls with a worse pair than 66, the middling boards are dreadful for you.

ok tnx for the answers arty, appreciate it

also thanks to other posters for your feedback guys, also appreciate it

Is it possible for a locked strategy to have an higher EV than the unloked one? In my case, I've build a tree for SBvsBB SRP (trying to figure out something on the cbetting range) and solve for a dEV of 0.25%; the EV of the solution is 2.95, but the check range solution have an EV of 2.96, against a 2.85 for the bet range solution. I'm wrong in something or is it possible? I'm using GTO+.

It depends on the board texture for sure but overall I think a default of checking range is actually not a bad simplification and will not lose that much EV, contrary to what other posters here are saying. You won't lose that much EV on most textures but some textures you will, like Arty mentioned.

Ok Jarretman, thank you for your answer, but I have an increment of 0.01EV between the mixed strategy and the checking range strategy in favour of this last one. So, this is not a minimal loss of EV but a gain (sure, +0.01, but is anyway a gain). How is it possible? Is it for the limited number of sizes I've inserted in the tree, or because this sizes are probably far away from the optimal?

Probably is because of dEV %

Enviado de meu XT1033 usando o Tapatalk

probably will be for that reason, thanks.

I can confirm what jarretman says is true for 30bb. The loss in EV will be very small and... If the IP player bets vs missed cbet too frequently (which they often will if they dont realise you are checking 100%), check/raising corrcetly can yield a huge EV gain for OOP.

GLGL

ive Heard Linus does this (or atleast used to) so it can’t be that bad.
Of course you shouldn’t vs passive fish, but I think it can be a fine strat.

If the cc has a tight range which I would interpret as equal to or less than 10%, then beginning our strategy as simply checking everything to them as the OOP PFR is likely better for you to do now as it will minimize the amount of mistakes you make. That being said, you should still start to look at boards where you can bet and what hands you should be betting with and move away from this strategy towards a better one.

Keep in mind how you play this situation is mostly a function of the CC range. Also, on a lot of textures, this strategy does assume the OOP player bets into us very often.

Other things to consider overall given this situation:

1. range of CC
2. Board texture
3. Frequency CC folds vs cbet
4. Frequency CC raises vs cbet
5. Frequency CC bets vs missed cbet