I don't think its too far off. If you are using 3bet or fold strategy from the SB it could be the explanation. To have a cold calling range, hands like AJs ATs, KQs, QJs are added to the calling range at some frequency

I do mix in calls from the SB, but not vs a BTN open.

Interesting, I'm very curious to see what information would come out of that.

I listen that podcast sometimes.

Solver cbets that board 75%, so its fine. This cbet frequency is very sensitve to any change in PF ranges
For example look sim for NL500 Genaral solution looks like this

This is BU calling range in that case

but in NL500 basic

and btn is calling


So in one case cbet is 80% in other its 35%. Sizing is not the same tho... 1/3 and 1/4 pot. When i run A43r cbets only 40% with 1/3 sizing, but with 1/4 bet cbets 65%.

You can exploit range cbettors even on dry A-high flops just raise super small they should defend all kind of K-highs, underpairs, BDFD+BDSD. Most regs just fold too much. If someone is range betting and playing good after that there is not much you can do to exploit.

In a SRP I think most regs are cbetting too much, but in a 3BP I think they are closer to equilibrium on average. I think it will be hard to exploit population in general and you will have to target individual villains.

As Mr Haizemberg said, flop strategy is highly dependent on preflop ranges. I always thought the GTO wizard ranges were a little odd (the ones I've seen have BTN flatting AA vs SB 3bet). Could be correct if the 3bet size was very big, but I doubt it's an accurate reflection of what the pool is doing.

In general we get to cbet more after 3betting smaller, because villain will call significantly wider and our own 3betting range doesn't change that much compared to his. I actually like 3betting to 4x from the SB for this reason--a lot of boards that you would otherwise have to mix become range bets, including A76.

Also, note that frequency is not always a good gauge of how much ev a rangebet loses. For SB 3bet vs BTN, there are lots of A high boards where we cbet 60% of the time, but lose <0.5% of the pot when we rangebet. There is a lot of flexibility in our strategy because our range is very underpair heavy, and AK/AQ does not mind betting small to allow the underpairs to bet more often. After all we have a significant equity advantage, and even a hand that doesn't need protection like KK pushes a lot of equity by betting.



But as the board gets lower, we have more overpairs and less underpairs. This makes our range much more polarised, and the overpairs especially are not happy if we go for such a small size. Our equity advantage is also less pronounced, and altogether we see a much higher ev loss when we rangebet--even if the original frequency is not too far off from 100%.

That's an interesting point about the 4x sizing preflop. I know some people use this strategy in SBvsBB spots where they open less than 3x so they can range on more boards.

As far as the EV loss argument - I think it is somewhat flawed and a little deceptive.

Yes you only lose <0.5% of the pot in theory but you are also assuming you play perfectly OOP across all flop/turn/river nodes.

Even the flop node most people will mess up. Go nodelock BTN's response to a 30% range bet on A98tt - it will be raising at a decent %. Now SB needs to start implementing 3bet ranges OTF or he will lose even more EV. Not only that - but once you start getting deeper OTT/OTR it get's really dicey.

Let's say you range KK for 30% pot on A98tt - I raise you 2.5x you call. What the heck are you going to do OTT if I bet? These spots get really tricky and the whole EV loss argument assumes you play very well on future streets, which I just can't concede.

Also this assumes 100bb starting stacks. God forbid we start getting deep because then ranging get's even worse. This is why I don't like ranging in general - if you start changing parameters like starting stacks then checking frequencies sky rocket.

Yeah I would definitely start having some checks if stacks were deeper. At 100bb it's difficult for IP to put too much pressure on us, which is why the rangebet performs reasonably well in theory.

In practice I would expect it to perform even better, because most of the population is not going to be too aggressive against my cbet.

Against the minority of players who are raising aggressively, I agree that it can be quite difficult to play! But as long as you know who these guys are, you can always adjust by having some checks again, and/or defending wider against the flop raise. Turn should not be that big of a problem either, as long as you are aware of what your range looks like. After all it's 100bb, which means the turn and river bets you face will be capped at less than pot.

One final point to consider is that we will also be making mistakes in the flop check lines. Just like how we need to split our range between 3bets and calls against a flop raise, we also need to split between checkraise and call against a flop stab. And this is why I personally prefer to play a simpler strategy (provided the ev loss isn't something absurd like 2% of course).

range betting is too complicated to play perfectly so instead u split ur range and then proceed to play perfectly? it's nearly impossible to play a single (post flop) node perfectly

I just assume they have KK/A5 way too often when they (SB) check the A76r and just check down everything worse

I just checked this again in GTOWizard, and it's also betting close to 80% on A76r

I use NL50 General setting. You're using Complex, and I don't know what the differences are. But General has it betting much less.

lol come on.

This sim is so manipulated. You are 4x preflop and betting 7% pot/13% pot ~20% of the time. Then you bet 19% pot another 10% of the time.

Almost every spot would be ranged if we start using ridiculous sizing's.

It's not a realistic sim.

No it's the opposite. Range betting is so easy that when you get played back at - you will have a harder time deciding how to continue because you didn't put any thought into your cbetting range.

That's kind of the point.

My sim doesn't use those ridiculous sizings (only 33%), and yet it still wants to bet 80% of the time.

It would be more helpful to know why my sim is wrong, rather than just being told it's wrong.

Okay I understand that but no one can tell you why your sim is wrong. The ranges you inputted are obviously different since we are both using GTO+ and getting different outputs.

Just copy the GTO Wizard ranges perfectly into GTO+ and make sure you account for the SB calling range somehow.

If you get lazy with ranges (like not putting JJ-AA in BTN's range ever) then SB will cbet more.

I figured it out.

It's because the Complex ranges (that I was using) include all pocket pairs for the BTN, whereas the Simple ranges do not.

The Simple ranges are also folding hands like J9s and T8s.

Oh okay interesting.

I noticed in your Complex Ranges SB only 3bets to 10bb as well. What does SB 3bet when you use Simple ranges?

12bb

but I use 11bb in my sim, so I don't think that's going to cause much of a difference

imo, the complex ranges are more realistic.

just run a population report from these spots and you'll see the BTN is calling much wider than the Simple ranges would recommend.

Yeah I've noticed that the General setting has the button mostly folding to a SB 3 bet with hands like 22-55, but in reality almost everyone is flatting the 3 bet with these pairs on the button.

Think most players would 4bet AA BTN vs SB too, regardless of 3b size.

Yet they are 1knl regs, which tells us something about the usefulness of all this GTO pandering

They have also been playing for 15 years. You'd play higher than that if you played 15 years

Makes more sense then, volume is quite important