The Case For Range C-Bets
It's well known that there are many scenarios where c-betting your entire range on the flop for a small size is correct in theory, and is effectively unexploitable. For example, Single-Broadway-Low-Low boards (e.g. Q-6-2 rainbow) as the in-position preflop-raiser in a single-raised pot.
Flop C-bet Strategy on Qc6s2d - Button vs. Big Blind
There are other situations where PioSOLVER c-bets the majority of the time, but does a lot more mixing. A lot of Ace-Low-Low boards fall into this category (e.g. A-9-8 two-tone in the above scenario).
Flop C-bet Strategy on As9c8s - Button vs. Big Blind
If you c-bet your entire range for a small size on these boards, and your opponent responds by calling/raising more than the equilibrium strategy, you will get exploited for a non-trivial percentage of the pot.
As a result, most people will conclude that they need to play a mixed strategy on these boards (both c-betting and checking). But before you start mixing, it's a good idea to consider the downsides of complicating your strategy.
Question: When do we lose EV against a balanced strategy?
If you are playing against a blind-GTO strategy (i.e. a balanced strategy that never adjusts), the only way we lose EV is by checking a hand that is higher EV to bet (or betting a hand that is higher EV to check).
Hands that are mixed strategies (the EV of betting and checking are equal) can either be pure bet or pure checked. This won't affect your EV, again, assuming your opponent does not adjust to you.
Now here’s the key point: In a c-bet scenario where you bet the majority of the time, there will be many hand combos in your range that are pure bets (higher EV to bet), and few or none that are pure checks (higher EV to check).
So when you start mixing your strategy, you may get closer to the equilibrium strategy, but you will invariably start to mistakenly check some of those pure bet combos.
In other words, you will have reduced the maximum exploitability of your strategy, but you are now bleeding some EV in practice without your opponent having to make any adjustments to you at all! This is called an unforced error. It’s like double-faulting your serve in tennis.
Therefore, in a vacuum environment (anonymous or live), or if you are playing against players who don't understand how to adjust (usually at low or mid stakes), it is not only easier, but also higher EV in practice to simplify and c-bet range many situations when it's incorrect in theory.
On the other hand, if you are playing in known environments against tough opponents who will adjust, you will have to mix your strategy on a lot of boards and learn how to identify hand combos that are pure-strategy in theory. There's no way around it.
It's annoying, but unfortunately, as far as strategies go, the range bet is probably the easiest to identify, and also the simplest to counter (you just call and raise like an animal). You have to be careful who you use it against.
These concepts don't just apply to flop c-bets. There are many areas in poker where "precision" matters more than "accuracy," and it is okay to err as long as you are erring in the right direction, assuming your opponent does not adjust.
Conclusion
Range c-bet strategies are simple and practical, but make you more vulnerable to exploits, especially in known pools vs. tough opponents. Mixed c-bet strategies are less exploitable in theory, but invariably lead to unforced errors in practice.
