So, after a few factors including conducting my own research into SRP OOP as PFA play led me to seriously consider and begin to implement the range-X (specifically SBvBB), I'm now considering how to continue down this path with my XR range construction and hand selection.

My general thoughts are that my best route is too differentiate boards via texture so that I end up with only perhaps a dozen or so to analyze how the solver would play the XR post range-X (manual grid work) (obviously using relevant ranges/bet sizes for each position).

Any thoughts/advice? Thanks.

(I understand that this is probably somewhat unnecessary, and can follow generally std rules like XR most TP+, strong draws, as well as some weaker paired hands and lower equity draws (BDFD etc.) - is the general consensus that this is completely unnecessary given I play LS currently?).

I used to think that flop texture was binary. I’ve since come to realize that it’s not. There are different ways to get profits that are dependent on the way the ranges interact.

Some flops offer lots of protection and late street value with big hands. These are the big money making flops.

Some flops offer little protection but much later street value.

Some flops offer much protection but little late street value.

Some flops offer little protection and little late street value.

I'm all for simplification, but I think we should be careful when looking at simplifying to a strategy that goes in the direction of passivity even if you do want to expand your xr range. In wide range spots, simplifying to range checking on all boards is pretty extreme, and against some opponents just a terrible adjustment. Against someone defending too little, I get where your coming from because they get to flop too tight. On the other hand, vs someone defending appropriately and 3betting 18-20%, your just giving up too much EV on a number of boards I imagine. I get that if you nodelock some assumptions in PIO, you start seeing PIO funnel hands into the xr line, but these strategies can be quite complicated and difficult to manage on later streets. So what starts out as an exploit just results in you getting rexploited w/ too wide a range on later streets. MMASherdog talks a lot about this in the content I've seen and I would encourage you to check out his material.

Putting that behind us, a xr range is going to be reflexive of the range our opponent represents when he bets & along w/ a number of obvious factors. But in general, if your opponent bets 1/3, the xr range is going to be wider than when he bets more polarized with a bigger size. I'll show my personal method below for approaching xr when multitabling, but I'm open to critiques and encourage anyone to rip me apart.

When my opponent bets basically I determine if it falls into the polarized bucket or the merged bucket.

Polarized Bucket: Traditional xr strat, XR all the obvious value hands given the texture of the board & ranges assumed keeping some traps in the x-call range that don't need protection, add in all the big combo draws 100%, dominating FD's most of the time, 8 out straight draws most of the time, best bottom and middle pair +bdfd like 20% of the time

Merged Bucket: Same thing as above, but we stop trapping, expand the value region to some TPGK type hands a bit more often, and w/ the call range we just tack on like 5-15% raise freq on basically every hand except we can call the hands that are just obviously gonna be better in the call line. This way we xr at the right freq, but its not overly complicated.

Implications on turn:

When we take the polarized bucket strategy, were going to be barreling at high freq, and not be doing much xr check. When we do xr-check we will be overfolding a lot compared to MDF, but we make up for it in the barreling line so no biggie.

When we take the merged bucket strategy, were going to be xr-checking a lot. Were going to polarize to a range similar to our polarized bucket strategy OTT, but keep some of the weakest valuebets that would be in the normal polarized bucket and reintroduce those traps that don't need protection and put them in that xr-check range that way were not just getting owned when we face xr-call-x- V bets.

I'm not good enough to xr-xr

Should'nt be checking range BvB too often. You can do it on boards that are alot better for BB (3 low cards and monotone flops mostly), but checking range on AT+ and 2+Broadway boards is sacrificing a ton of EV at equilibrium.

I think having a 100% check on certain textures is entirely acceptable. But applying it to all textures will probably do more harm on the textures that are good for than, the 100% will help simplify and defend our checking range on less advantageous boards