Having a ****ed up range is not an issue and it doesn't lose you EV up until villain exploits it.
Just don't construct ranges in a way that villains will naturally exploit with their own leaks. Construct them the opposite way.

If villain bets 15% of the time for a 25% sizing whenever you check, you SHOULD have an incredibly capped and weak checking range.
If villain bets 60% of the time for a 80% sizing, playing each hand in the most profitable line will keep you uncapped (Check strong hands for maximum EV).

I barely RNG at all, and I'm not particularly sticky with marginal hands. I have probably one of the lowest fold to probe frequencies of anyone you've seen. This could be exploited by villains probing a certain way, but they don't, because they are more concerned with following their own Gameplan than with adjusting to their environment.

But how will they know on an anon site? Unless you think population goes crazy later vs checks in general (in which case, it might just straight up be higher EV to check)

Say we play against each other in the exact same spot.

Flop goes X/X and turn is X/B


Would our strategies be the same on the turn as OOP?

Why would it matter if the opponent isn't exploiting you?

Fair point.

Is there no way they can exploit you in that instance?

Just because ur not balanced doesn't mean anyone's actually doing something about it. A good portion of ur winrate comes from the good hands so put a lot of money in the pot with them unless ur opponent does it for u. No need to change anything if they're not regurarly betting huge against ur capped range.

It's the same thing as against a fish who only XRs the nuts and u bet/fold a very good hand. They could obviously exploit it (lol) if they somehow could, in theory, but they won't. Whenever u exploit ur open to a counter exploit but if they won't, ur exploit is working

There are miriad of ways in which you can get exploited, post your stats and I'll tell you a few off the top. But in anon, no one knows who you are or what you're doing...
Also, the ways in which you can get exploited have most of the time nothing to do with RNG or not RNG

If the opponent doesn't know our tendencies, we should play the exact same strategy no matter what our range looks like. Even if we end up folding 100% of our range on the turn because our range is too weak.

i feel like alot of these types of threads devolve into people trying to show how smart they are instead of working together to get better / get feedback lol but im here for it

I think one problem is your cbet frequency will be way less than 50% lol

Because even on flops where our range only wants to bet 20% of the time, we'll still have some hands that always want to bet?

I mean if you bet every single hand 50% of the time, you get a 50% cbet frequency. So if you bet some hands 50% and some hands less than 50%, you wouldn’t be able to hit 50% with your range.

But there will be boards where our range wants to bet more than 50% of the time.

Like if the solver has an overall betting frequency of 65% on the flop, then I'd either bet the hands that want to bet 65% of the time, or check the other 35%.

What do you mean by "want to bet"?
If overall frequency is 50% and you are pure checking some hands and betting 50% of the time with the rest, your overall frequency won't be 50%. Plus the whole approach is nonsensical, misses the point of how you make money in poker, and is still exploitable, so why do it in the first place?

Hands that the solver will bet with at a reasonable frequency. I suppose that part is a bit subjective.

Like the earlier example, BBvBTN (SRP) / Tc7c5d

Hands like sets, TPs, FDs want to bet.

Hands like K2ss, Q3hh and Q3ss don't want to bet.

What about hands that bet almost always?

Well originally I would include them in the overall mix, but after this discussion, I could see the issue with that strategy.

So what about

Hands that are mixed between betting/checking (RNG based on overall range frequency)

Hands that are close to pure bets (Bet 100%)

Hands that are close to pure checks (Check 100%)

So if you are going to make an inexact approximation that has no particular benefit (Is more exploitable than a freestyle RNG strategy)
Why not actually judge each hand individually and RNG it to a different degree?

i don't really see why people think an rng is unnecessarily complicating a strategy. it's just about cleaning up the best version of your own strategy (including any exploitative adjustments) in real time and takes a split second to do. the only way you'll happen to improve your play by not using an rng is by pure luck, right?

i'm not suggesting it's optimal to use an rng for every spot that you suspect is mixed frequency, just that it must be a helpful tool for regulation if you suspect certain actions are chosen at significant frequencies (i.e. you're not just gonna simplify a 90/10 decision to 100/0).

i'd also argue that actively encouraging your brain to think about these things is helpful practice, anyway.

Yeah, the never RNG camp is clearly wrong since most crushers use it, I'm just arguing it should be a last resort. And if you're struggling to move up it should not be your priority at all. Not even close.
Also, how does RNGing help you with an exploitative strategy? If one action is higher EV than another action versus a given opponent, you just take that one always, anything else would be giving up money.

And I would disagree, I think that encouraging your brain to think about this is harmful unless you're already good and quick about everything else that is orders of magnitude more important to think about, like how EV is generated on each line individually.

exploitative strategies just involve deviating from (what you think is) gto, it doesn't have to be a full shift away from mixed frequencies. could even, easily, turn some gto pure frequencies into mixes.

yeh, ok, that's somewhat fair. if you're not at a level where you can make those mental approximations quickly, it could be a hindrance.

remember i'm speaking as someone that never used an rng. i just don't see how you can really argue against their utility.

Because memorizing frequencies of individual hands is a lot harder than just memorizing the frequency of our overall range.

Do not memorize any frequency. This approach is killing your winrate by the minute.
Any time you spend ingame thinking about how your strategy maps out to a solver output from memory you're wasting time and mental resources that could be dedicated to finding what line/lines make money and how. Paradoxically, it will be easier for you to play closer to GTO with the second approach.
The reason why the first approach doesn't work is because in 6 max NLHE there are too many different variables that will affect an output, and it is not just difficult, it is IMPOSSIBLE to learn even 1% of them by memory. You need scalable concepts that can "brain solve" spots on the fly.

The first approach will make you have a **** ton of leaks on spots where everyone has the most obvious leaks, since most common leaks come from missing the nuance of slightly different textures/positions/lines.

Most professional chess players wear suits. Does this mean that it increases their EV? The suit is just a preference, as are RNGs.

There are only two types of opponents that you can face in poker:
- The ones that are exploitable
- The ones that play perfect GTO

Vs the ones that are exploitable, you really shouldn't use RNG as it's burning your EV. You should be exploiting them.
However, vs the ones that play perfect GTO, it doesn't matter what you do. You can randomize in your head or just pick one of the options. The EV is the same either way.

So please explain to me: In what theoretical situation could RNG ever increase our EV if we're the best player at the table?

False dichotomy fallacy at work here. Using binary options like this doesn't work because we are limited by our knowledge of the player.

I'll take a page out of Anero's book and use a metaphor.

Second law of thermodynamics in Physics states that entropy cannot decrease in a system - but it isn't true if we are Laplace's Demon. Okay that was a little obscure but it is here to make a point.

Yes we would never use RNG's if we were omniscient - but that isn't a realistic frame of reference. The RNG is there for two reasons:

1) To have a framework for our overall strategy to base our decisions on
2) To accept our ignorance of our ability to know all proper exploits

The RNG is us accepting that we can't know all deviation's to make the most amount of money. Simply because it is not a reasonable frame as we are limited by us you know - being human.