First an intro since it's my first post. I've been lurking for a month or so as I get back into poker (it's been several years), but have plenty to learn as things have changed some. When I left I would say the GTO/solver discussion was just getting started. I'm pretty new to using Snowie and GTO+ but while I was doing some review today I had a realization that the GTO+ never asks who the preflop aggressor is. I understand the reason is initiative isn't really a concept and the difference is really about ranges, but it led to some interesting things related to cbetting OOP.

There were a couple hands this came up and I included one below. I'm having trouble with the converter for some reason, but it's a simple hand so I'll just post the details and figure out the converter on a future post.

Effective Stacks 100bb
I open KK in the CO for 2.5x
BTN calls and everyone else folds

Flop = KcJs8s

I cbet for about 75% being a pretty wet board.

Snowie identified this as a blunder and suggests checking 100% of my range.
I built a tree in GTO+ to see if it as just snowie and it suggests the same thing.

This seems weird to me that I wouldn't want to bet KK on a board like this. I can obviously get value from all kinds of hands and there are plenty of combos GTO+ has in the BTN checking range I would rather not see the turn for free.

I can see one question being "if you weren't the preflop aggressor would you donk this flop" because from a GTO standpoint it's the same. The difference is I never have KK (or JJ and maybe not always 88) as the preflop caller here.

I'm curious if there is additional insight. I think at least at low stakes it would be a mistake to check 100% on that board. That may just be a non GTO adjustment to the pool, but I'm still curious on the solver output.