solution on different stakes

It looks like in the second sim the pre flop range just has less weak suited kings and queens, stuff like that? So it appears your overall range ends up being stronger on this board, allowing you to play more aggressively, unless im missing something? Just quickly glancing at the charts that's all I can see that would explain the fairly drastic difference in strategies.

This is a good example of the limitations of solvers. Another example would be when you're in the big blind and it folds around to an unknown in the small blind, who limps. We don't know if they're limping 100% with their playable hands, mixing limps and raises with their strong hands, or playing imbalanced and only limping with mediocre holdings. We also don't know if they're over folding or over calling and playing 100% of hands. This makes it very difficult to put them on a range to construct an optimal counter strategy.

Other people may have a difference of opinion, but I try to craft a balanced strategy in these spots. You might not always know exactly how much of a range advantage you have, but you can still value bet and bluff at the proper ratios, etc.

In the second chart most of your hands are betting and checking with mixed frequencies. IMO which action you choose to take with different specific hands is not as important as making sure your overall frequencies are reasonable. You don't want to be massively over or under bluffing, you want to value bet appropriately but also want to make sure to protect your checking range, etc.

So what you can do is look at broad categories of hands. For example what percentage of pocket pairs want to bet? Then look at what pairs tend to bet at higher frequencies. From there one reasonable way to approach the spot is to split different hands into different categories that roughly correspond with the correct frequencies. For example maybe you always bet with JJ and always check with AA. Since your opponent doesn't know your strategy, they can't exploit any imbalance on future run outs.

If QJ type hands with a backdoor flush draws are usually betting and similar QJ type hands without backdoor draws are usually checking, then you could simplify to always betting when you have the backdoor draw and checking when you don't.

This type of simplification can lead to an EV loss on certain runouts, but it is often offset by an EV gain on a different runout so that the overall strategy is not losing much EV compared to GTO.

This is preferable to just thinking what you do doesn't matter. If you were to bet every hand that is supposed to be mixed, you would open yourself up to major exploits and much greater EV loss.

Anyway I'm tired and just about to go to sleep so I hope that made sense.

Also one last tip that majorly helped me. Know your own tendencies and default to the opposite of what you tend to overdo if you are uncertain in a spot. My tendency is to want to make the bluff, make the call, etc. So at one point I had literally typed a note into my phone so I would repeatedly see it, "if other options are not clearly +EV then fold." This also makes sense as folding is always 0 EV, so if you are not certain another action is +EV then folding is the most reasonable action to take. Anyway good luck!

In SB vs BB SRP node, a lot of the time everything is mixed. You should start by evaluating what your opponents are doing vs. a bet and what they are doing vs. a check.

To start, see how often they are folding and raising vs. a small bet and compare that to the equilibrium output. If they are over folding, then you can already ascertain betting is very reasonable. That being said, it is also possible they are misplaying vs. a check, so you should evaluate their strategy and compare and contrast between both nodes to identify if and how you should exploit their strategy by deviating with your frequencies and actions.