I imagine most pots will be played as BU vs. BB, where the BU opens and the BB calls. In these situations people love to check/raise on straight draw flops hence the 82%. The button will usually take it down when high cards hit resulting in a low showdown.

What you can take away from this:
1) High card flops don't go to showdown as often
2) Pots get bigger on straight draw boards
3) People are scared of monotone flops and like to check down

I believe that I finally have a way to accurately and simply analyze a flop. Not all my idea, had some good suggestions here.

Flop board analysis.
1. Mentally sort the cards in order, high to low. So 7cKs9c becomes Ks9c7c.
The 19,600 possible flops are suddenly reduced to 10 buckets.
HHH HHM HHL HMM HML HLL MMM MML MLL LLL
Now you have a much better chance of analyzing any Flop.
3. For each of the 10 possible Flop buckets look for the following:
Rainbow - No cards of the same suit.
Pair - Any 3 cards the same rank.
Ace High - Any Ace.
Two suited - Two cards of the same suit.
Gap 0 - Connected cards. 8c7d.
Gap 1 - One gap between cards. 7c9c.
With this, we have a manageable framework that we can use for evaluation.
4. Now we can categorize Flops as Wet Dry None or Static Dynamic None.
A wet flop is one with lots of draws. A dry flop is one with few draw possibilities. None is in between.

A static flop is one where the winning hand is likely already made. A dynamic flop is one one where the winning hand has not been made yet. Wet / Dry and Static / Dynamic flops overlap a lot. I believe that Static / Dynamic is the most useful.

I have written the software to do this. When fully tested I will explain the details here and will post a number of flops and how they were categorized for comments. Probably in a new thread.

Hey man, how is going with the tests?

Enviado de meu XT1033 usando o Tapatalk

Progress is good but tedious. I have reached about 90% accuracy ( my judgement ) in classifying flops as wet or dry. I will post some flops that I have classified using software in a couple of days, for comment. The state of the art is that classification is very opinion based and I hope to change that.

What I am working on now is a scoring algorithm foe Straight draws and Gutshot draws. It uses the gap counts of the Flop. Gap 0, gap 1, and gap 2 and combinations such as gap 0 and gap 1.

I will also publish the algorithm on 2+2 in simple ( mostly ) English.

I have opened a new thread on categorizing flops. I am close to a working algorithm.

When grouping flops one should probably consider the Range (NUT) advantages and the number of the number of semi-bluffs in a range as this is one of the biggest factors on the value-to-bluff ratio's.

This is heavily preflop betting specific e.g. UTG versus BB and BTN versus BB give different ranges and therefor different Range (NUT) advantages on different flops and also different patterns for the flop also 3-bet pots are completely different due to compactness of the ranges.

So besides of grouping of flops one should also look at grouping of preflop situations (similar range vs range situations) to accomplish anything here.

I am currently doing same and am running into same difficulties.

I ran the 229 flop list (Not sure where I got 229 from, thought it was a PIO site)

FI use the following algorithm to "categorize" a flop. I tried to look at what seems to adjust the strategy the most vs. the least.

First check if Flop is MONOTONE - Cat 1) Monotone
Next TRIPs Cat 2) TRIPS
Next Pairs Cat 3) PAIRS
Connectedness 4) Zero Gap (567, 9TJ, etc.)
4a) 1 Gap (568, 9TQ)
Flop size -- number of cards above T -- Cat 5) Cards above 10

-- simple sub categories
Is it rainbow
Closest Two card Gap (TTJ = 0, TTQ = 1, etc.) - Is an OESD possible?

-- 2nd sub categories
Is the Pair High / Med / Low

It looks like this:
Forgive the formatting
Flop Equity EV Bet 40 Bet 13.2 Check Suitedness High Card Flop Type Overall Gap Overall Gap Closest Gap
4s2s4d 58 27 0 100 0 standard 4 small low low pair single gap
8s3s3d 58 27 0 98 2 standard 8 small low low pair no straight draw
KsKd6c 60 28 0 97 3 rainbow 13 mixed high high pair no straight draw
KsKd7c 59 28 0 95 5 rainbow 13 mixed high high pair no straight draw
TsTdTc 59 27 0 93 7 rainbow 10 high medium medium trips no straight draw
Qc4s4d 59 28 0 92 8 rainbow 12 mixed low low pair no straight draw


now EVEN after all this I still get wildly different strategies for VERY similar hands.
So what I have tried to to do is look at the percentage of time it bets (small / large) on HAND TYPE -- this helps, but still is not there. [And it's way to manual]

For example: Monotone Flops we bet small / And we bet about 75% of our made flushes (90% of nut flushes and about 70% of non-nut flushes)

Where i use it the most (so far, not to into it yet - I think I need a smaller subset of flops, but it's hard when they still vary so much and by running 200+ I can usually find something close to a hand played without having to redo sim) is Bet sizing.

Some flops prefer small bets (monotone, low pairs)
Some prefer Big (A(KQJ)x, connected High Flops QxJx9y)

But even here there is no real clear lines.

So a lot to say, I hear you and am having same issues.

im doing the exact same thing with aggregate reports.
the approach i took was
paired boards
SD boards
4+gap boards (disconnect)
trips
straight boards

i then typed out in notepad the rainbow flop combos of each of these main super-groups without isomorphisms

then i ran a subgroup sample of each one with slight variables ie adding a flush draw, changing "straight draw" to 1 gap 2 gap 3 gap straight draw etc. This gave me a manageable # of flops to work with , while understanding how each nuance changes results.

then switching ranges/ stacksizes (3b srp etc). im still only working OTF O_O

also if anyone wants to work on this, since we are all basically doing the same thing shoot me a PM

I just found this ... It misses important things like ace high boards etc.

Texture
Triplets
Monotone
Double Gutshot rainbow
Double Gutshot 2 suited
3 Straight 2 suited
3 Straight rainbow
Cnctr 1 gap 2 suited
Cnctr 1 gap rainbow
Cnctr 3+ gap 2 suited
Cnctr 2 gap 2 suited
Cnctr 2 gap rainbow
Cnctr 3+ gap rainbow
Pair and Connector 2 suited
Pair and Connector rainbow
Pair 1 gap rainbow
Pair 1 gap 2 suited
Pair 3 + Gap 2 suited
Pair 2 gap 2 suited
Pair 2 gap rainbow
Pair 3 + Gap rainbow
Other 1 gap rainbow
Other 1 gap 2 suited
All Other rainbow
All Other 2 suited

Will send PM - I guess I don't know how ... lol