Using Equity to Refine Villain Ranges Post-Flop: Practical or Too Theoretical?

I’m currently working on refining opponent ranges post-flop and want to focus on using an equity-based strategy.

The idea is that each hand in villain’s range starts with a weight of 1 when the flop comes, and each post-flop action reduces that weight to reflect the likelihood villain continues with that hand. Instead of classifying hands by categories like “top pair” or “set,” I’m considering refining ranges by looking at each hand’s equity vs. my range on that board.

For example, on a flop like As 8s 3d, a set (88, 33) might have around 80% equity vs. my range, while top pair + top kicker might have around 60%. I would then estimate that villain raises:

* 90% of the time with hands between 50% and 80% equity (value and strong draws)
* 10% of the time with hands between 20% and 40% equity (bluffs and semi-bluffs)

This way, I don’t need to explicitly think about hand categories or manually adjust for board texture, as the board’s impact is automatically reflected in the equity calculation.

My concern is whether this approach aligns with how strong players think when estimating ranges during a hand, or if it’s too theoretical and doesn’t match practical estimation. I’m also wondering how others handle these refinements when analyzing hands off the table or when reviewing HHs to improve hand-reading skills.

Has anyone here used equity-based filtering to refine villain ranges systematically post-flop?
Did you find it practical, and are there pitfalls I should watch for when using it to guide study or building intuition?

Would appreciate any experiences or perspectives on using equity as the primary filter when estimating ranges post-flop.
Thanks.