Right, and in this instance yeah we XC flop, but we could also "donk" or "lead" flop (tbh that would be a better example of my point) - OOP bet after flop chkthrough can be termed a "probe", but that terminology is more neutral, I think the main point I wanted to get across was that the historical perception of betting as OOP into a player who took the last aggressive action on the previous street being somehow unwise can result in a kind of mental game issue where some people are reluctant to incorporate such actions, hence why solvers, who lack that emotional baggage, find such bets at a far higher frequency than even strong human players in the pre-solver era.

Do you mean the combos showing up in the larger sizings? I wouldnt really take much notice given how little use other betsizes get overall - if the split were even enough that b67 or b100 made up a chunk of our overall volume, id start to consider having more than one betsize, but in this case given that b33 is like 85% of our overall frequency I'd just ignore it for ease of implementation - were I for whatever reason to use the sizing, it seems focused around semibluffs with no showdown value and then the stronger full house/quads combos for value, so basically the greater polarity you'd expect to see from a larger betsize.

Hahaha, I dont, but I might start, thats a pretty imposing self-intro. Congrats on the woke phraseology :p, basically the 2pr hand class leads at a lower freq in absolute terms, but it occurs more often in our range, so it prob makes up a decent amount of our total leading range, the no showdown value combo draws lead at a higher freq but they occur less often, so it somewhat balances out.