Comments on Analysis of RR Ranges...

the following discussion refers to a spreadsheet found here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pvjFKb7H91RqBvslkH-zcJA

bb cbetting frequency makes all the difference: the fact that all players do not c-bet all flops is mentioned in the original article, but the effect of this may be somewhat understated. consider a flop of Js92s facing the 4.7% rr range and button calling range of 7.9% {88+, ATs+, AQ+, JTs+}. if the bb c-bets all flops then the button min-r returns ev(100%) = 15.4bb (assuming that bb shoves, and button calls, with a range of [>=tp, fd, oesd, >=1p+gs]). in contrast to when the bb check/folds overcards and check/calls mid pairs (assumed to check down after flop), the bb will check ~57% of their hands and the button min-r returns ev(43%) = (18.7bb).

applying these same assumptions about checking, calling and shoving ranges to additional flops we get the following ev(cbet%): 

• 874t: ev(100%) = 10.2bb; ev(47%) = (14.3bb)
  


• Q94t: ev(100%) = 9.6bb; ev(50%) = (15.4bb)


• K73t: ev(100%) = 10.9bb; ev(69%) = (1.6bb)
  


• A86t: ev(100%) = 10.0bb; ev(54%) = (11.9bb)
  


• KT5r: ev(100%) = 6.9bb; ev(77%) = (1.6bb)
  


• T63m: ev(100%) = 3.0bb; ev(49%) = (16.6bb)
  


• QJ2t: ev(100%) = 4.6bb; ev(72%) = (6.6bb)
  

it is possible that these negative expectations for raising over a constricted c-betting range are largely due to the conditions that btn 1) always bets when checked to and 2) raise/calls when facing a bet w/ [>=tp, fd, oesd, >=1p+gs]. obviously, other lines (e.g., checking behind, calling or raise/folding) could be better in many of these spots. even so, the (unsurprising) point stands that many factors other than board texture have large impacts on the ev of any particular play. in this scenario, the c-betting tendencies of the bb have a huge impact on the profitability of raising.
other comments on the analysis of rr range article:

1. the big message for my nit-brain here
   is that most 3-betting ranges are not all that susceptible to flop
   bluff raises. so, i can basically c-bet a ton of missed flops and quit
   worrying about being exploited when i have to fold to a raise. unless,
   of course, villain has a peculiar 3-bet calling range...
2. bluff-raising K-hi flops IP is basically printing v. all but the tightest 3-bettors.
   
3. forget about bluff-raising Q-hi, 2-broadway and monotone boards (for the most part).
   
4. i feel that floating is (or could be) a big part of these situations
   with some players/dynamics, albeit a much more complicated part. it may
   be tough to address this neatly, as one would have to think about
   pfrr's flop and turn c-bet frequencies, potential for caller to
   improve, etc. i suppose this would get messy and may be difficult to
   use anyway, but might still be worth trying...
   
5. an obvious point that was mentioned in the text is that c-betting
   tendencies vary widely from player to player. it might be possible to
   do some more analysis and try to isolate this variable?
   
6. one other problem is that from the bluffer's perspective, there is no
   account for 3-bet re-bluffs. maybe this doesn't come up too often, but if we use this article as a guide, an observant opponent could certainly exploit us.
   
7. there is also no account for reads, recent history, metagame, etc. i guess i likely overrate that shit anyways...
   
8. the assumption that players are folding 'weak' hands may be increasingly questionable in today's games. for example, i've had small raises called/re-raised by JJ on Kxx 2-tone boards 2x recently by 'good regs'.