What to internalize when solver c-bets almost every combo half the time on paired boards?

You could run the sim with two different betting structures and compare the EV difference.

e.g. in the second sim you could force the solver to bet range for b33 and then see if we lose much by simplifying to that strategy. Usually this is the case in range bet type spots. I believe the amount of acceptable EV loss varies depending where you ask but anything >1 or 2% of the pot and it starts to get too damaging to simplify.

They're not supposed to fold that much to a range bet anyway. So it's hard to lose too much/any EV in this specific node. Which is basically why its torn between bet/check.

Thank you, I hadn't thought of that approach. Range-betting does lose 2% of the pot, but most of the EV loss only manifests if villain actually exploits with a 40% raise-frequency in position. Even if they "only" raise 22% of the time, range-betting then only loses 1% of the pot.

Your response also made me realize I should've run the sim at maximum precision to help it get through these tiny indecisions. At 0.1% precision some hopeless air like T6 of clubs does finally become a pure check-fold.

I've heard that studying the flop too much can be a waste of time (and I can see why), but BB's 24%-frequency raises IP and SB's flop-3bets are not entirely intuitive. Is BvB the most common situation that the IP player raises the flop (therefore necessitating a studied 3bet range from SB)?

Dunno. That's beyond my understanding currently. My guess would be pools are not wildly far off GTO frequency wise in this scenario so it'll play out quite naturally. MDA for SB v BB paired boards might tell a different story, but in general OOP in a SRP I would tend towards slightly overfolding compared to gto and playing more linearly vs action.

A lot will boil down to opponent tendencies and game dynamics too. e.g. if we're opening wider in the SB (because BB underdefends) and they catch on then they may start to take more aggressive lines, and suddenly all our 0ev Bluffcatchers become almost mandatory calls.

Your range for IP is dramatically too tight for BvB. You can bet your entire range on basically all JJX board textures SB vs BB for a small sizing without losing much/any EV.

To specifically answer your question: if you see basically all hands mixed between betting/checking, then all those hands are equivalent in EV between those two actions vs. the opponent's current strategy. If they maintained that strategy and you either checked all mixed hands or bet all mixed hands the EV would be the same.

Thank you for pointing this out, I was unknowingly using the BB range from GTO-Wizard that assumes the SB uses a limping strat some of the time. You're right, if SB tightens up to 44% and BB calls 59%, it's absolutely a range bet. Do those preflop frequencies sound more correct? I don't have paid GTO-Wizard so I don't think I can ask it to output a range where the SB doesn't limp

BB wouldn't call 59%, but in a relatively low rake environment BB would defend ~59% in aggregate vs. a linear ~44% RFI from SB of a 3.0x sizing for NLH 6-max and no antes--yes.

Sorry but I'm confused again, I figured out how to make GTO-wizard stop limping from the SB and now the BB defends 52.5% of the time but only calls 34% of combos. Can you clarify what you meant by my BB range being dramatically tight? Given this tightness, SB is back to c-betting only 50% of the time on JJ3r in SRP (which doesn't necessarily disprove that the EV of range-betting is acceptable)

Surprisingly (to me), the c-bet frequency goes down to 19% if you give BB three more suited hands of jacks than SB has (J4s-J2s) and one extra offsuit hand of J8o (all hands that could be 3bet polarized instead of flatted). Range-betting then loses 5% of the pot in EV. That seems like a huge swing in strategy relative to a realistic loosening of villain's range (I've seen regs flat J7o BvB). Does this just go to show that you shouldn't take solvers too literally?

The lesson is that when you're OOP you need to check a lot, and it's important to do it in a balanced way. You have to check a lot with good hands too so the IP player can't run you over when you check.

You're referencing 50nl ranges. I specifically caveated it with, "very low rake". Also, it will still make a big difference. Your screenshot still shows IP being quite tight in my opinion (0% A2-A5o, no k8o, q8o, 54o, 65o, 76o, 87o, all 7xo gone, no % of weaker suited hands like 62s, 73s, 84s, T5s, T4s, T3s, etc. Can you take screenshots of how you're creating your trees and the ranges for IP?

I also doubt that range betting loses 5% of the pot...

It's also important to realize that on most paired boards SB vs BB the BB is supposed to be raising small c-bets upwards of 30%+, which does not occur. They are also supposed to be folding only very close to alpha in vast majority of configurations, but population folds quite substantially more than this.

When you add in JX for IP, of course it vastly shifts the c-betting frequency. This is why low paired boards are checked very often for SB vs BB SRP node.. like think paired boards 22-88, because IP is defending hands vs. opens that SB doesn't RFI and contains these cards so IP has more of them... think like 65o, 53s, 52s, 75s, 85s, 95s, T5s, for a flop 55X... OOP isn't opening these, but IP defends them.