number i've seen a lot re: simplifying from mixed freq to pure for a cbet is 80%..

What justifies range betting is range advantage and nuts advantage. Your strong hands give cover to your weak hands and make them most profitable to bet owing to increased fold equity for your whole range. It's because Villain has an incentive to fold often and to raise seldom that all your trash hands gain from betting and your weak made hands benefit even more from a bet (gaining also the benefits of protection and thin value) than they would from checking back, from seeking a cheap showdown, or from sometimes turning themselves into bluffs or bluff catchers on later streets. So, at equilibrium, your whole range bets the flop not just for balance but also (and always) because each individual hand gains more (or at least as much) EV from betting small than it does from checking. Balance is important but balance always is in the service of EV maximization for each and every hand, even at equilibrium.

Because of those considerations, I think it's important, when deciding to simplify a flop strategy as a range bet, to look not only at the proportion of hands that the solver bets but also to look at the few hands, if there are any, that are significantly higher EV to check rather than to bet, and try to understand why. Sometimes, even the hands that check 100% of the time have barely less EV as a bet than they have as a check. If that's the case, there likely is very little harm in betting your whole range even when the solver bets the whole range less than 85% of the time (or less than any other arbitrary cutting point). On the other hand, even if the solver bets more than 85% of the time, it may be worth identifying the hands that suffer from betting (if there are any) and to check them instead. The rest of your range still will play very much as a range bet in spite of there being a few hands not figuring in it because they profit more from a check.

There’s a few things I would consider here:

1-The pool you play against. If they are underdefending and/or not check raising enough then a solver is going to bet more often, sometimes at 100%

2-from what I’ve read 80% is a good default threshold, but again make sure to take into account pool tendencies. IIRC Sauce likes 1% or less pot loss and 80% usually aligns with that.

3-The ease at which you employ a strategy. Say your arbitrary cut off point is 80% and you come across a 70% board. I would investigate how that 30% check range is comprised and really do an honest estimate as to how likely you are to replicate the solvers strategy.....you could easily lose more money overall by checking 30% as opposed to going the other way and range betting.

I’ve heard Sauce say he aims for <1% loss in EV when making a range simplification decision.....I certainly don’t aim for 1% as I’m not nearly as skilled. Instead I’ll start big, like 5% and then pare my way down until I see a strategy that I can employ, which is probably somewhere between 2-4%.

Obviously the goal is to get to Sauce, but it’s just my humble opinion that it’s better to start with simplistic strategies and look for ways to get closer to 1% as I go along. If you’re playing 100 or lower I really doubt your opponents are going to capture that 4% theoretical loss whereas the guys Sauce plays will.

Any feedback appreciated. Best of luck!

HawksWin how do u determine how the population is x/f, x/r in different spots? could u explain it a little bit? Or do u have any artikel or vid which explains it?

I run it also in H2N enter image description here

looks like my population is overfolding vs Rangebet on Highcard, Highcard, X.