So filtered T hi rainbow flops. Haven't ran through solver but think we can simplify to range bet T hi flops for 66% or would that be overdoing it here?

Thank you.

So instead of betting Pot with 56% of the hands and checking 37% and a small amount of 1/2 bet, you want to bet 2/3 pot with ALL your hands?

If you simplify solver too much you might risk applying a worse strategy than your intuition or just playing your cards as they are.

It would be heavily overdoing it.

Nope, you can't do that.

You have to learn the individual hand groups.

Also the difference between pot bet and 66% bet is massive when the equities run close so you will be hosing your v-hands as well and massive amounts of semibluffs. Your range actually hates most turn cards.

It can be improved upon but as strategies go having only one bet size is at least very difficult to exploit. At highest depth solver might like infinitesimally different bet-sizes according to the equity distributions of different board textures. Whatever, having one bet size is a pretty reasonable strategic response if your capacity to utilise isn't up to par, and if you're betting different sizings without understanding why, then imo that would be a worse strategy than using your intuition and betting whatever feels right. don't copy the solver. understand why the solver does things and then apply that to your game.

Appreciate the replies. I understand the theory is a bit out there potentially but wanted to confirm/get some 2nd opinions.

Reason I bring it up is was going through Galfond's hu course and saw he takes a 3b spot in vision (one below) and instead of betting 72% of his range for 50% pot he simplifies to betting full range here for 1/3.




Big reason Phil gives is to simplify and not split range when we don't need to.


I was also comparing a lot of EV spots between check and 0% bet freq in monker and EV's, in spots like this where we have a very large betting range, are pretty similar. Which makes me wonder if the EVs of actions (even as far apart as check and bet 66% or whatever) in these high range cbet spots are super close why can't we just simplify to full range bet and play turns?

I get the nuances of how my range will be constructed w/ total air on many turns but again I'm not suggesting doing this for every spot. Just ones where the check freq is far lower.

Phil talks about in Vision trainer Live on his Youtube. Don't remember exactly what he said, but just because EVs are so close doesn't mean you can just ignore them. Reason being what you mentioned about screwing up turn/river ranges. Also how can you exploit someone if you don't know the baseline?
“Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.”
-Picasso

Personally, anything under 20% of time I'll simplify to doing other action 100%. 28% is just too much to disregard. Also this skill is important and will translate to other spots.

Why should knowledge of the baseline help you understand poker theory?