Yeah that's pretty much how I felt pre-solver look as well, but I think I often have a contradictory thought process here. On the one hand "he'll never call here" when I jam value but then if I get here with a bluff I feel like it's a "terrible spot to bluff." It's very unlikely both of those are true, so just a spot I want to improve my thought process and get closer to what solver is doing.

That is very true! Both can't be true. I think as exploit just go maybe 3x with bluffs and maybe 2.5x with value? I still don't like a jam here unless it is pretty nutted... A5s A4s etc but prefer smaller size with 44 55 33 76s 22 A2s AJs etc type hands. So maybe 3-4x with Aces full and some bluffs. Just figure out how many combos of each you want to bluff.

I thought the 67 shove was bad on my part because I know that I am not balancing it properly. Honestly the jam was more of me being annoyed at the KQ hand. My thought process was pretty simple. I need to raise...how about $110...nah...jam!

RoleTide too many people are focused on balancing their ranges. I would focus more on what you know about the player. If he is super sticky, then Jam! If he seems to be playing solid or more nitty then make a small raise. Overall, would work slightly on preflop ranges as BTN / SB probably a tad too wide unless you know it is some kind of exploit. Postflop as Steve said you seem to mix up your cbet size more based on your actual hand strength as see some sets going 75%+, some TPWK going 40%, some air XF, etc. Playing really face up but not really considering what opponents can call your bets with that is worse. Again I would not think I played it bad because it's unbalanced, that is 99% of players being unbalanced. I would be mad that I didn't have a thought process of what extracts the most value. Also even if Solver jams, doesn't mean it's correct because each player pool is different. Solver is going to find some wild calls in these spots that humans are never finding. So when humans don't find these calls, the Jam becomes worse even if it's balanced with bluffs.

Also do you have a link to your blog?

RunItTw1ce Some good stuff here to think about. I agree that balancing our ranges is not hugely important below 500nl. We can be much more linear and straightforward with good results. It also reduces our variance which is nice for those that struggle with tilt control. However, this will be exploited by most good Regs at 500nl plus, and there are not enough weaker players to overcome this bb loss.

Concerning sizing, I always size up with strong hands against "weak" opponents. The only exception would be when I crush the flop and they can't have much. That being said...I do have sizing tells and this is part of the reason that I am shifting to a one size strategy for the time being...except against weak players.

I don't have a "blog" but I do have a poker journal on here. I really appreciate any and all feedback along the way!

One last thing to add when you said you need to be balanced at 500NL, I am going to disagree at least on every site besides pokerstars. Pokerstars is known for the toughest games, but still has fish in the pool, maybe only 10%, but they are there. Where I see videos Tyler makes on ignition for 1KNL being pretty damn soft. Saying you need to be balanced at 500NL is a cop-out in away. I understand you want to respect your opponents, but I think a deep look will show how weak most players are even at 500NL on most sites. Don't over think it too much.

Highly recommend wizard for preflop and some flop play. Might not agree with the sizes available for cbetting but ranges and lines are pretty solid in general! No offense to Steve Paul but Wizard and other trainers like Lucid are going to put a lot of coaches out of business! At least forces the coaches to teach something beyond the basics of preflop and cbetting.

I need to check out wizard. At the moment, I am drilling my preflop ranges with Flopzilla.

I have never had a coach but I have found a ton of value in my dialogue with @stevejpa. Along with the videos, he gave me some great feedback via messenger. Solvers and trainers are great to drill spots but a good coach can still help patch leaks. I have spent probably 100 hours drilling spots on GTO+, Lucid, and GTO Sensei. With all of that time spent, I think I got more out of Steve's review of my one hour session than all of the hours spent grinding the sims. Improving is hard, especially for someone like me that is playing on a site that doesn't allow any hand tracking software. It is not possible for me to go back and review a session, and I do not receive any stats to analyze my play. I have to keep a detailed spreadsheet of my results and make notes to review along the way. Overall, I think there is still a lot of value in a good coach.

Steve will have the fresh and experienced eyes that students won't be aware of the leaks they have.