I'm not sure if OP is actually asking about a particular setting to use for 'Nash distance', so I might be missing the point, but if we're just alking about simplifying the strategy in general...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose0141
In spots where the solver c-bets at 85%+ frequency, most people will just round up to 100% and bet their entire range as a simplification.
I wouldn't be particularly interested in the EV of my entire strat. I'd look for
combos that have pure strategies (as opposed to mixed strats) and try to make sure I make the correct actions with those. e.g. If the solver says "C-bet 85% of your range" and some of the hands use mixing, I'd look for the few combos that should
always be checked. After all, if something like QQ is a "must-check" on Kxx, then betting that hand is what would drag down your overall EV. You can look up how bad it is to bet combo XX, and compare it to the EV of checking it.
In any spot where the optimal betting frequency is <100% and some combos should be pure checks, there will always be some combos that are the
worst c-betting candidates. Your job is to find them.
If it turns out that
every hand in the range in a particular spot can/should be bet at some frequency (it's just that mixing brings it down to 85% overall) then it's not going to be a problem if you go with 100%, since - in the vacuum of that one hand - you'd still be playing GTO. The only EV mistakes you can make are when you bet with hands that should be 100% checks, or you check with combos that should always be bets.