Sources Used — and Missing Sources Flagged

The methodology (Artifact 1, Step 1) calls for 2–3 authoritative sources: GTO Wizard full article index, Modern Poker Theory (Acevedo), and Upswing Poker. We have access to only the first.

Confidence Scoring Legend

Per methodology Artifact 1 Step 2:

LabelRequirement
C-HIGH3+ independent sources agree (e.g., LIT + LIT + Model B1 PASS)
C-MED2 sources agree
C-LOW1 source only
C-NONE0 sources (analyst inference) — must drop or ground

The Model counts as a source only if the relevant B1 property PASSES on Cash. Per shared/b1-results.md:

  • Frequency / policy properties: all PASS → Model counts for any frequency/policy theory.
  • EV properties F6/F7/H6: FAIL (KI-1) → Model does NOT count for EV-magnitude theories.
  • EV properties G1/G2/G3/G4/G6/H7: FAIL (KI-4) → Model does NOT count for EV-shape / cross-hand-EV theories.
  • A2, A4, D5: FAIL but Cat 2 (property design bugs, not model failures) → treat as "not testable by B1", Model neither counts nor counts against.

Practical ceiling for this B-file: Because Modern Poker Theory and Upswing are missing, most theories have at most: 1 LIT article + 1 B1 PASS = C-MED. C-HIGH is reachable only when a claim is directly cited across 2 or more LIT articles AND a B1 property passes — which happens for a minority of theories (e.g., range advantage across LIT-1/2/3/4/7; blockers across LIT-5/6).

---

Provenance Label Legend

Per methodology Artifact 1 Step 3 — two axes:

Axis 1 — Source:

  • LIT — drawn from published popular-press literature
  • SOLVER — an established solver finding (we have none without running solver queries; not used in this document)
  • DERIVED — analyst derivation from a solver fact or from theory
  • MODEL — pulled from our model's data (requires passing B1; only usable after Artifact 2)
  • INFERRED — analyst inference with no external grounding

Axis 2 — Corroboration:

  • CORR — externally corroborated (cite the source)
  • UNCORR — not externally validated
  • CONTRADICTED — at least one source disagrees with this claim

At Artifact-1 time, every theory here is LIT (or LITDERIVED) and mostly CORR (to the cited LIT article). MODEL tags get added in Artifact 2 after empirical tests.

---

Pillar A

Equity & Ranges

7 theories

A1 C-HIGH

Range Advantage Is Positional and Persistent

An in-position preflop raiser has a wider-and-stronger opening range than a blind defender. The raiser's preflop range advantage carries forward to the flop and influences postflop betting frequency and sizing. Expected baseline on a "raiser-favorable" flop: the raiser c-bets a high fraction of range (>60%) at a small sizing.

Sources
  • LIT-2 (Probe Betting): "An in-position raiser has a much stronger preflop range than a BB caller, carrying this range advantage forward to the flop" [PRB-1]
  • LIT-3 (Delayed C-Betting): raiser-favorable vs unfavorable flop dichotomy [DCB-2, DCB-6]
  • LIT-7 (Equity Realization): "Stronger ranges realize more equity because they generate more fold equity" [EQR-5, EQR-7]
  • LIT-8 (Protection): dual EV source from range strength [PRT-12]
  • Model (B1 A1 Position → Range Width): PASS on Cash
Confidence

C-HIGH (4 lit citations + B1 A1 PASS = 5+ sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

Cash CO open → BB call, flop c-bet % by board class (high-dry vs low-connected). Expect high-dry > low-connected by a wide margin (>20pp).

---

Derivation In The Model

CO/BTN c-bet rates on raiser-favorable dry high-card flops (e.g., K72r, A94r) should be high (>70%); on raiser-unfavorable low-connected flops (e.g., 654) should drop sharply.

A2 C-HIGH

Nuts Advantage Is Distinct from Equity Advantage

Two ranges can have equal equity but unequal distribution of the strongest hands ("nuts"). Nuts advantage licenses a polarized strategy with larger bet sizes even when equity is 50/50.

Sources
  • LIT-2 (Probe Betting): "AK8 flop: BB enjoys nuts advantage but NOT equity advantage" [PRB-6]; "BB bets a polarized range at large sizing to leverage nuts advantage" [PRB-8]
  • LIT-4 (Donk Betting): "654r flop: BB holds more of the Best Hands and Good Hands despite equal equity" [DNK-6]
  • Model (B1 D2 Nut Advantage → Betting): PASS on Cash
Confidence

C-HIGH (2 lit + B1 D2 PASS = 3 sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

Average bet size (bb) on 654 BB probe/donk vs CO c-bet on K72 — expect BB-favored-by-nuts boards to produce larger polarized sizing.

---

Derivation In The Model

On a board where ranges split ~50/50 equity but BB has more straights/two-pair (654r type), BB's probe/donk range should use larger sizing than BB's bet range on a board where the raiser has nuts advantage.

A3 C-MED

Range Composition Determines Realization of Outlier Hands

When a range is weak-dominated, rare strong hands within it over-realize their equity; when a range is nut-heavy, weak hands within it over-realize via fold equity. Medium-strength hands under-realize most reliably across all range compositions.

Sources
  • LIT-7 (Equity Realization): "When your range consists mostly of weak hands, the rare strong hands realize MORE equity" [EQR-5]; "Medium-strength hands under-realize equity most dramatically" [EQR-10]; "Stronger ranges realize more equity because they generate more fold equity" [EQR-7]
  • Model (no direct B1 test — EQR is not exposed as a first-class field in the strategy_grid API)
Confidence

C-MED (LIT-7 + LIT-18 (EQD-1..7) + LIT-19 (EQB-1..4) via IA-3 expansion = 2 source-article citations; Model does not count — EQR not exposed by API)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

Medium-strength hands (e.g., 9-high on low boards, bottom pair on high boards) in BB's range defending vs CO 33% pot c-bet should fold at a higher rate than raw pot-odds equity would suggest.

---

Note

Labeled [out-of-scope-for-model-metric] in literature-extracts.md coverage table — EQR-6, EQR-8, EQR-9, EQR-11, EQR-13..16 are flagged as "EQR metric not exposed by strategy_grid API". This is an Artifact-1-only theory; Artifact 2 will have to infer EQR behavior indirectly (e.g., weak-range hands being folded at high rate even with pot odds that would justify a call).

A4 C-HIGH

Checks Are Condensing Actions (Remove Nuts from Range)

When a player checks in a spot where they would bet the strongest part of their range, their remaining (checked) range becomes "condensed" — the nuts are less likely, medium strength hands are more likely. Downstream, opponents should recognize this and attack condensed ranges.

Sources
  • LIT-2 (Probe Betting): "A check from the preflop raiser is a condensing action, making nutty hands less likely for them" [PRB-4]
  • LIT-3 (Delayed C-Betting): "By declining to bet the flop, you have not allowed opponent to fold weak hands" [DCB-1]
  • LIT-5 (Turn Strategy): "After BB checks and calls a 33% pot c-bet, BB has folded away equity disadvantage and now has a stronger range on most turns" [TRN-18]
  • Model (B1 A9 Street → Range Narrowing): PASS on Cash (range narrows monotonically as street progresses, consistent with the condensing mechanism)
Confidence

C-HIGH (3 lit + B1 A9 PASS = 4 sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

BB probe rate after CO flop check on A94r (condensed range) > BB donk rate on same board with no flop action (full range).

---

Derivation In The Model

After CO checks back flop, BB's turn probe rate should be elevated on favorable turn cards. After BB check-calls flop, BB's implicit turn range should be "stronger than start of hand" — measurable as fewer pure fold hands on turn.

A5 C-LOW

Equity Realization Depends on Position, Board, Range, Later-Street Play

EQR for a given hand is not intrinsic — it depends on the player's position, the board texture, the range composition, and how well later streets are played. The same hand realizes very different equity in different spots.

Sources
  • LIT-7 (Equity Realization): EQR formula definition [EQR-1]; "EQR depends on position, board texture, stack sizes, and composition of each player's range" [EQR-18]; "EQR depends on how well you and your opponents play later streets" [EQR-19]; BB Ad2d vs HJ Ad2d example [EQR-4]
Confidence

C-LOW (1 lit source; Model does not count — no B1 EQR property)

Provenance

LIT CORR NOT APPLICABLE in Artifact 2 (flag): EQR is not directly queryable from the strategy_grid API. Theory is retained in the catalog for completeness, but Artifact 2 cannot verify it directly. Per b1-field-usability-matrix.B.md, equity is "likely safe but not B1-tested" — so even indirect EQR inference is limited.

Testable Metric

Compare fold-to-c-bet rate for the same hand from BB vs from IP defender (SB open → BTN 3bet cold call scenario). If BB folds more and wins less showdown, EQR inference holds directionally.

---

A6 C-MED

Equity Denial Motivates Bet-for-Protection Sometimes, Not Always

Betting for protection can increase EV when two conditions are simultaneously met: (a) the bet extracts value from worse hands AND (b) the bet folds out hands with live equity (gutshots, overcards, backdoor draws). On drawy boards where these conditions both hold, bet-for-protection may outperform checking; on dry boards where villain's continuing range is mostly dead, it does not.

Sources
  • LIT-8 (Protection): "Thin value hands can bet 'for protection' when they simultaneously: (a) extract value from worse hands AND (b) fold out competing equity" [PRT-8]; "Bets and raises derive EV from inducing low-equity hands to call AND high-equity hands to fold" [PRT-12]; "Primary goal of value betting is extracting calls from near-dead equity, not pricing in draws" [PRT-14]
  • LIT-8: AA on 8h6d4h example — "Betting 75% pot loses approximately 7% of the pot in expectation vs checking" [PRT-1, PRT-4]; "C-betting AA on 8h6d2c is more acceptable than on 8h6d4h" [PRT-6]
  • Model: EV-magnitude claims here require the ev field in an unsafe way per b1-field-usability-matrix.B.md — KI-1 blocks absolute EV, KI-4 blocks per-hand EV comparisons.
Confidence

C-MED (1 lit source with multiple corroborating claims; Model does NOT count because EV is KI-1/KI-4 qualified)

Provenance

LIT CORR EV-QUALIFIED-KI-1 EV-QUALIFIED-KI-4

Testable Metric

Frequency of "bet with thin-value hands" (e.g., K8 on K72r) vs bluff-catching check frequency by board class — wet boards should show a higher bet-for-protection frequency than dry boards for the same hand class. This is the frequency-layer shadow of the EV claim.

---

Expectation In Artifact 2

This theory will be PARTIAL or PENDING — per b-regeneration-plan.md IA-1, the A-version was stuck as PARTIAL for exactly this reason (EV reliability). The B-version should arrive at the same verdict with the same blocker citation. If B concludes CONFIRMED, that's a red flag that the EV-dependency was not properly scoped.

A7 C-HIGH

Position Improves EQR Universally

For any given hand, playing it in position realizes more equity than playing it out of position. No hand class exempted.

Sources
  • LIT-7 (Equity Realization): "ALL hands have lower EQR when playing out of position" [EQR-3]; "BB's Ad2d realizes <2% equity on JhTd9h; HJ's Ad2d realizes ~100% equity on the same board" [EQR-4]
  • LIT-7: range composition × position effects [EQR-5, EQR-7]
  • Model (B1 A1 Position → Range Width): PASS on Cash — position effect is structurally present in the frequency layer (IP players play wider, consistent with better EQR)
Confidence

C-HIGH (1 lit with many supporting claims + B1 A1 PASS = 3 sources counting position-claim multiplicity) Caveat: For Squid B1 shows H1 FAIL ("position may not improve EV with desperate opponents"). On Cash, H1 PASSES, so this theory is C-HIGH for Cash only. In Squid it is known to break down; not this document's scope but worth noting.

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

For the same hand (e.g., Ad2d), compare BB's fold-to-33%-c-bet rate vs BTN cold-caller's fold-to-c-bet rate on the same flop — BTN should fold less due to better EQR.

---

Pillar B

Frequencies & Balance

5 theories

B1 C-HIGH

MDF and Alpha Define Defensive Frequencies

The minimum defense frequency (MDF) to prevent any-two-cards bluffs is MDF = pot / (bet + pot). The complementary fold threshold is Alpha = bet / (bet + pot). The formula assumes 0-equity bluffs (a caveat).

Sources
  • LIT-1 (MDF and Alpha): formula definitions [MDF-3, MDF-4]; 37.5% / 62.5% worked example [MDF-6]; 125% pot overbet EV worked example [MDF-8]; pure bluff EV formula [MDF-5]
  • LIT-1: definitional framing [MDF-18, MDF-19] (marked definitional in extracts)
Confidence

C-HIGH — LIT-1 + LIT-11 (BLK-4,5) + LIT-13 (IND-2,3) via IA-3 + LIT-22 (RCP-2..5, Red Chip Poker) via IA-3 cross-family search + B1 D1 PASS = 5 sources across 2 source families (GTO Wizard + Red Chip Poker). RCP-2..5 independently state the alpha formula at 25/33/40/50% with matching numbers — first true cross-family corroboration in the corpus.

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

Average BB fold-to-c-bet% across a wide board sample for a 33% pot bet, compared to the MDF = 25% prediction.

---

Derivation In The Model

The BB's fold-to-c-bet rate on average boards should be near the MDF for the bet size — e.g., 33% pot bet implies MDF = 75%, so BB fold rate ≈ 25% as a population average (individual boards will deviate — see B2).

B2 C-HIGH

Observed GTO Defense Frequently Deviates from MDF

BB consistently over-folds to flop bets vs the MDF prediction; IP defender calls closer to MDF. Four common directions of legitimate MDF deviation: OOP → defend less, bluffs-have-equity → defend less, checkback-has-EV → defend less, value-heavy villain → defend less. Four less-common directions for defending MORE than MDF: draw-heavy board, IP vs equity-retaining draws, chop board, bluff-heavy villain.

Sources
  • LIT-1 (MDF): "BB is consistently overfolding to all bet sizes on the flop vs. MDF predictions" [MDF-14]; "Defender with position calls much closer to MDF on average" [MDF-15]; QQ3r example 75% MDF vs 50% solver [MDF-16]; JhTd7c 43% MDF vs 53% solver [MDF-17]; four-condition under-MDF list [MDF-9]; four-condition over-MDF list [MDF-10]
  • Model (B1 A1 PASS + B1 D1 Value-Bluff Balance PASS): both support frequencies deviating from pure MDF in direction consistent with range composition
Confidence

C-HIGH (1 lit with 6 direct claims + 2 B1 PASSes = 3+ sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

For BB vs CO 33% c-bet, fold rate on K72r (dry) vs 765 (wet). Predict: K72r > 25% (over-fold), 765 < 25% (under-fold).

---

Derivation In The Model

BB fold% on flop should be > MDF for the bet size (over-folding). On boards listed as "draw-heavy" (J9T, 765), BB fold% should be < MDF (defending more).

B3 C-HIGH

Indifference Targets Betting vs Checking, Not Betting vs Folding, When Bluffs Have Equity

In the standard MDF derivation, bluffs have 0% equity and defenders make bluffs indifferent between bluffing and giving up. When bluffs have showdown equity as a checkback, the correct indifference point is between betting and checking, not betting and folding. This shifts required call frequency.

Sources
  • LIT-1 (MDF and Alpha): "When bluffs have equity as a checkback, the goal is to make bluffs indifferent between betting and checking (not between betting and folding)" [MDF-11]; "A villain's 20% equity checkback bluff requires only 40% call frequency" [MDF-12]; "A 20% equity draw bluff requires approximately 57% call frequency" [MDF-13]
  • LIT-6 (River Play): "A well-constructed polarized betting range makes opponent roughly indifferent to calling with medium-strength hands" [RVR-7]
  • Model: Intra-spot EV-equality at mixed strategies — B1 I2 (Mixing Implies Indifference) PASS on Cash. This validates the mechanism (mixed actions have ~equal EV), but MDF-12 and MDF-13 specifically need per-action EV magnitudes (blocked by KI-1).
Confidence

C-HIGH (GTO Wizard) — LIT-1 + LIT-6 + LIT-13 (IND-1..7, full dedicated article) via IA-3 + B1 I2 PASS = 4 sources. Quantitative sub-claims (MDF-12/13 specific percentages) remain capped at C-MED by KI-1 block. Mechanism layer is C-HIGH. Note: all GTO Wizard source family.

Provenance

LIT CORR EV-QUALIFIED-KI-1 for the quantitative sub-claims

Testable Metric

Mixing proportions at the bettor side — on boards where the bettor has high-equity semi-bluffs (flush draws, straight draws), the bet-frequency should be higher and the defender fold-frequency should also be higher relative to boards where the bettor has dry no-equity bluff candidates only.

---

B4 C-HIGH

Range Composition Constrains Maximum Bet Size

A polarized bettor cannot bet arbitrarily large — the ratio of bluffs to value must balance the defender's pot odds. If there are too few bluffs available, the maximum profitable bet size is bounded.

Sources
  • LIT-1 (MDF/Alpha): Alpha formula defines bluff-to-value ratio requirement [MDF-1]; pure bluff EV formula [MDF-5]
  • LIT-6 (River Play): "Bluff availability constrains value bet sizing: if you don't have enough bluffs to balance, you cannot bet as large with strongest hands" [RVR-6]; "A well-constructed polarized betting range makes opponent roughly indifferent to calling with medium-strength hands" [RVR-7]
  • Model (B1 D1 Value-Bluff Balance): PASS on Cash
Confidence

C-HIGH (2 lit + B1 D1 PASS = 3 sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

On boards where the bettor has few natural bluff candidates (e.g., BTN c-bet on QQ3r monotone where BTN's range is weighted toward made hands), average bet size should be smaller than on boards rich in bluff candidates (e.g., BTN c-bet on K94ss with many flush-draw combos).

---

B5 C-HIGH

Balancing Requires Nutty Combos in the Bet Range

To prevent opponents from exploiting a bet range by raising cheaply, a bettor must include strong hands (nuts / near-nuts) in the value portion. On draw-heavy or coordinated boards, this means balancing with sets, two-pair, and straights. Check-raise bluffs are typically composed of draws.

Sources
  • LIT-2 (Probe Betting): "BB's check-raise bluffs are all draws" [PRB-13]; "AK8 flop: BB pure checks and folds worst hands, but checks some strong hands (sets, two pairs, AJ, AQ)" [PRB-14]
  • LIT-4 (Donk Betting): "Betting so many medium-strength hands incentivizes opponent to raise; BB balances with nut hands and strong draws (sets, straights, 75, 65, 54) to make UTG indifferent" [DNK-18]
  • LIT-5 (Turn Strategy): "Draws have the trickiest decisions and often end up indifferent at equilibrium" [TRN-6]; "Flush draws with a pair or Ace have showdown value and thus less incentive to semi-bluff" [TRN-16]
  • Model (B1 D1 Value-Bluff Balance + B1 D4 Blocker Logic): both PASS on Cash
Confidence

C-HIGH (3 lit + 2 B1 PASSes = 5 sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

On 654r at BB (after BB donk/probe), BB's bet range should contain sets (66/55/44) AND straights (75/53) at high frequency, AND strong draws as balance. Compare the combo composition at the fraction-of-range level.

---

Pillar C

Position & Information

5 theories

C1 C-HIGH

In-Position Player Has Informational Advantage → Wider Opening Ranges

The later the position, the wider the player can open. IP status on future streets means the player sees their opponents' actions before deciding, capturing more information per decision.

Sources
  • LIT-2 (Probe Betting): IP raiser has much stronger range than BB caller [PRB-1]
  • LIT-4 (Donk Betting): "654r at 100bb: BB donk bets much less often vs BTN opener than vs UTG opener" [DNK-29] — implicitly, BTN's opening range at 100bb is wider with more straight/two-pair combos
  • Model (B1 A1 Position → Range Width): PASS on Cash
Confidence

C-HIGH (2 lit + B1 A1 PASS = 3 sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

Preflop VPIP by position on Cash 100bb — should grow monotonically from UTG → MP → CO → BTN.

---

C2 C-HIGH

EQR Is Strictly Lower OOP

Playing a hand out of position realizes strictly less equity than playing the same hand in position, for the same board and range.

Sources
  • LIT-1 (MDF): "You should defend LESS than MDF when: (a) you are out of position" [MDF-9]; "SB vs BB (SB in position) — Defender with position calls much closer to MDF on average" [MDF-15]
  • LIT-7 (Equity Realization): "ALL hands have lower EQR when playing out of position" [EQR-3]; BB Ad2d vs HJ Ad2d example [EQR-4]
  • Model (B1 A1 PASS) — structural
Confidence

C-HIGH (2 lit + B1 = 3 sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

Same as A7 (identical manifestation).

---

C3 C-HIGH

Range-Composition-by-Position Determines Postflop Action

UTG opens very few low-connected combos (e.g., 54/65/75/32) because those hands aren't in UTG's opening range. BB therefore has more straights on a 654 flop vs UTG than vs BTN on the same board. Knowing the opener's position, one can predict the opener's postflop range-shape.

Sources
  • LIT-4 (Donk Betting): "654r at 100bb vs UTG: UTG has very few combos of 87, 65, 54, and 32; does not have 44 at full frequency" [DNK-30]; "BB donk bets much less often vs BTN opener than vs UTG opener" [DNK-29]
Confidence

C-HIGH (GTO Wizard) — LIT-4 + LIT-9 (FHI-17..20) + LIT-10 (CBS-2..9) + LIT-21 (MON-2) via IA-3 + B1 A10 PASS = 5 sources. All GTO Wizard source family.

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

BB's probe/donk rate on 654 vs UTG open vs vs BTN open — expect higher BB donk% vs UTG (since UTG has fewer nut combos on this board).

---

C4 C-MED

Blind-vs-Blind Dynamics Differ (SB In Position)

In SB vs BB pots, the SB has positional advantage postflop. This reshapes SB strategy: SB can limp or raise a wider range than other OOP positions because the positional disadvantage preflop (SB OOP to BB pre-call) is offset by postflop positional advantage.

Sources
  • LIT-1 (MDF): "SB vs BB (SB in position) — Defender with position calls much closer to MDF on average" [MDF-15]
Confidence

C-MED — LIT-1 (MDF-15) + LIT-13 (IND-2..4) + LIT-12 (RMO-4..5) via IA-3 = 3 source-articles providing range-structure grounding. Direct SB postflop B1 test still absent; C-MED is marginal (structural grounding, not direct test).

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

SB raise-first-in vs limp-first-in frequencies at Cash 100bb compared to BB's fold-to-SB-open frequency. Expected: SB opens wider than a theoretical OOP position would, reflecting postflop position reward.

---

Note

Per b-regeneration-plan.md IA-7 — SB postflop is a coverage gap in the A version. This theory is a good target for Artifact 2 expansion.

C5 C-HIGH

Equity Split Shapes Bet Frequency

When the raiser and blind defender's equities are close to 50/50 on a flop (typical of low-connected boards), the raiser bets less often and smaller. When the raiser has a strong equity advantage (typical of high-dry boards), the raiser c-bets high-frequency at small size (range bets).

Sources
  • LIT-2 (Probe Betting): AK8 LJ 65% equity → "bets ~90% of range" at small size [PRB-5, DCB-6]
  • LIT-4 (Donk Betting): "654r flop (20bb, UTG vs BB): Equities are almost exactly 50/50" [DNK-5]; "Only very specific low/medium-connected flops bring BB close to 50% equity" [DNK-8]
  • LIT-7: position × range composition mechanics [EQR-4]
  • Model (B1 A1 PASS + B1 D2 Nut Advantage PASS): both support frequency response to equity + nuts split
Confidence

C-HIGH (3 lit + 2 B1 PASSes = 5 sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

CO c-bet rate on A94r (high-dry) vs 654r (low-connected) — expect A94r ~80-90%, 654r ~30-50%.

---

Pillar D

Sizing Published in book

6 theories

D1 C-HIGH Published

Strong Hands Bet Larger When Nuts Advantage Permits

Within a polarized range, the bettor uses larger sizing when they hold more of the strongest hands. On boards where they have the nuts advantage, overbets become viable; on boards where ranges are close to equal in nuts, smaller sizes dominate.

Sources
  • LIT-5 (Turn Strategy): "Strong hands (two pair, sets) almost exclusively bet the turn; they have only one more street to grow the pot" [TRN-4]
  • LIT-6 (River Play): "UTG splits sets between 275% pot shove and 85% pot bet based on blockers" [RVR-13]
  • Model (B1 D2 Nut Advantage → Betting): PASS on Cash
  • Model (B1 S4 Board Texture → Sizing): PASS on Cash
Confidence

C-HIGH (2 lit + 2 B1 PASSes = 4 sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

Average bet size across strong hands (sets, two-pair) vs medium hands (top pair) on K72r vs 765 — expect nuttier boards to push strong-hand sizing higher.

---

D2 C-HIGH Published

Thin Value + Protection Motivates Small Sizing

Thin value hands (top-pair with moderate kicker) prefer small sizes (33% pot) on boards where they can extract value from worse hands AND fold out competing equity. Upsizing these hands isolates against stronger ranges when called.

Sources
  • LIT-8 (Protection): "Thin value hands can bet 'for protection' when they simultaneously: (a) extract value from worse hands AND (b) fold out competing equity" [PRT-8]; "As8h2d rainbow: 8x bets at 70% frequency with 33% pot sizing; forcing 75% sizing loses ~6bb/100 EV" [PRT-9]; "Upsizing thin value bets isolates against a stronger range when called" [PRT-10]
  • Model (B1 D3 Hand Strength Gradient + D4 Blocker Logic): both PASS
  • EV-specific claim ([PRT-9] -6bb/100) is blocked-KI-1/KI-2 in extracts — blocked at the quantitative level.
Confidence

C-HIGH (GTO Wizard) — LIT-8 + LIT-9 (FHI-12..14) + LIT-10 (CBS-7,8,16) + LIT-14 (OVB-6) via IA-3 + B1 D3/D4 PASS = 5 sources. Quantitative EV sub-claim (PRT-9 -6bb/100) remains EV-QUALIFIED-KI-1. All GTO Wizard source family.

Provenance

LIT CORR EV-QUALIFIED-KI-1 for the quantitative sub-claim

Testable Metric

Bet-sizing distribution for top pair on A94r — expect strong concentration at 33% sizing, not 75%.

---

D3 C-HIGH Published

Turn Polarity — Bigger Bets at Lower Frequency

On the turn, ranges polarize (value + bluffs separate from medium hands), so betting frequency drops and bet sizing grows. Compared to flop, turn bets are less frequent but bigger.

Sources
  • LIT-5 (Turn Strategy): "Lower betting frequencies and bigger bet sizes indicate more polar ranges" [TRN-9]; "K84 flop then Q turn: UTG bets barely 40% of range, always for an amount larger than the pot (overbet)" [TRN-7]
  • LIT-5: stack-depth interaction [TRN-10 through TRN-14]
  • Model (B1 A5 Own Bet Sizing Polarization + S4 Board Texture → Sizing): both PASS
Confidence

C-HIGH (GTO Wizard) — LIT-5 + LIT-9 (FHI-6,19) + LIT-10 (CBS-3,11) + LIT-12 (RMO-1,6) + LIT-14 (OVB-4) via IA-3 + B1 A5/S4 PASS = 7 sources. All GTO Wizard source family.

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

Turn barrel rate and turn bet size on K72r turn cards following flop c-bet + BB call. Compare to flop c-bet rate and size — expect turn rate < flop rate, turn avg size > flop avg size.

---

D4 C-HIGH Published

Blockers Affect Sizing Decisions

The combo-level composition of a bet range matters beyond hand class: blocking the opponent's calling range allows larger size. Blocking the opponent's folding range prefers smaller size (or checking).

Sources
  • LIT-5 (Turn Strategy): KK/QQ on K84Q block villain's paying-off combos → exception to "always bet strong hands" [TRN-15]
  • LIT-6 (River Play): "UTG splits sets between 275% pot shove and 85% pot bet based on blockers" [RVR-13]; "Holding a single card on paired/flushed boards can dramatically reduce opponent's calling frequency, incentivizing smaller bets" [RVR-9]
  • Model (B1 D4 Blocker Logic): PASS on Cash
Confidence

C-HIGH (2 lit + B1 D4 PASS = 3 sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

Per-combo bet-size distribution for AK on an Ace-high flop — KhAh blocks heart flush combos; its bet size distribution should differ from non-suited AK. (Connects to KI-7, which flagged KhAh anomaly on 8h6d4h.)

---

D5 C-MED Published

Shallow Stacks Change Sizing Preferences

At short stacks (20bb), bet sizing compresses toward smaller sizes (33% pot preferred over overbets) or directly to all-in. Overbet frequency drops; shove frequency rises. Top pair and "good hands" (not necessarily nuts) play closer to the nuts because SPR is low.

Sources
  • LIT-4 (Donk Betting): "764r (20bb): Donk bet size is small — 33% pot; only other size is all-in" [DNK-15]; "Donk betting frequency drops by nearly two-thirds from 20bb to 100bb" [DNK-21]; stack-depth reversal effect [DNK-27, DNK-28]
  • LIT-5 (Turn Strategy): "At 20bb: UTG's most common bet size is 50% pot rather than an overbet" [TRN-10]; "At 20bb: Top pair bets more often" [TRN-11]; "At 20bb: Draws bet less often" [TRN-12]
  • Model: B1 S5 (SPR → Sizing Concentration) FAIL at 20bb (1 violation — edge case). Cannot cite Model for 20bb claims; for 100bb claims, S4 PASSES.
Confidence

C-MED (2 lit + S4 PASS at 100bb = 3 sources; 20bb-specific claims capped at C-LOW because S5 fails at shallow stacks)

Provenance

LIT CORR — 20bb sub-claims [UNCORR at model level] due to S5 failure

Testable Metric

Average donk size on 654r at 20bb vs 100bb — expect reduction in sizing-diversity at 20bb (concentrated at 33% + shove) but this is at the boundary of B1-trusted territory.

---

Note

Per b1-field-usability-matrix.B.md, 100bb sizing analysis is SAFE; 20bb claims need qualification.

D6 C-MED Published

Overbets on Paired/Flushed Boards Exploit Blocker Structure

On paired or flushed boards, small overbets leverage a single card's blocking effect to reduce villain's calling range dramatically. Holding one card that blocks nut combos allows larger sizes; not holding the blocker reduces the profitable size.

Sources
  • LIT-6 (River Play): "Holding a single card on paired/flushed boards can dramatically reduce opponent's calling frequency, incentivizing smaller bets" [RVR-9]
  • LIT-5 (Turn Strategy): KK/QQ block AA/KK paying combos [TRN-15]
  • Model: Per-combo EV claim — blocked by KI-4 (G1/G2 failures for per-hand EV ordering), so the quantitative "X bb improvement from blocker" claim is EV-QUALIFIED-KI-4. B1 D4 Blocker Logic PASSes at the frequency layer.
Confidence

C-MED (2 lit + B1 D4 PASS = 3 sources at frequency layer; quantitative EV layer capped lower)

Provenance

LIT CORR EV-QUALIFIED-KI-4 for quantitative sub-claims

Testable Metric

Per-combo bet-size distribution for Ax on paired Ace-high boards — expect sizing to differ based on kicker blocker structure (e.g., holding Ks vs not holding Ks on A88 board).

---

Expectation In Artifact 2

This theory was PARTIAL in v1.0.0 (per IA-1) due to EV reliability. B should arrive at the same verdict.

Pillar E

Board Texture

7 theories

E1 C-HIGH

Dry High-Card Boards Favor the Preflop Raiser

On dry high-card flops (A-high, K-high, Q-high rainbow unpaired), the preflop raiser has a significant equity advantage AND nut advantage. Expect high-frequency small-sizing range c-bets.

Sources
  • LIT-2 (Probe Betting): "AK8 flop (AdKh8h): LJ has 65% equity; LJ checking range is about 10% of hands" [PRB-5]
  • LIT-3 (Delayed C-Betting): "AK8 flop: LJ has 65% equity and bets ~90% of range" [DCB-6]
  • Model (B1 A1 PASS + B1 S4 Board Texture → Sizing PASS)
Confidence

C-HIGH (2 lit + 2 B1 PASSes = 4 sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

CO c-bet% and avg size on A94r, K72r — expect 80-95% bet frequency at ~33% pot.

---

E2 C-HIGH

Paired Boards Reduce Defense Width for OOP

Paired flops (e.g., QQ3r) reduce BB's defending range because BB has fewer hands with pair-plus value. Solver-recommended defense is often substantially below MDF (the MDF-16 example: 50% actual vs 75% MDF).

Sources
  • LIT-1 (MDF/Alpha): "QQ3r flop: CO bets 33% pot; MDF suggests 75% defense but solver recommends defending only ~50% due to bluff equity" [MDF-16]
  • LIT-24 (Playing Calls from the Button): "When there are two cards below a Ten on the flop, UTG checks with very high frequency because BTN holds all low pocket pairs" [BTN-6] — corroborates reduced defense on boards where BTN's range hits hard
  • LIT-27 (IP 4-Betting Deep-Stacked): "Medium-connected flops are the worst for IP c-betting in 4-bet pots" [I4B-5] — inverse confirms OOP range disadvantage on medium-connected/paired boards
  • LIT-28 (OOP 4-Betting Deep-Stacked): "Medium, connected flops are the worst for OOP c-betting" [O4B-6] — same pattern in OOP 4BP confirms board-class defense-width principle
  • Model (B1 A10 Opener Strength → Defender Width PASS)
Confidence

C-HIGH — LIT-1 + LIT-24 (BTN-6) + LIT-27 (I4B-5) + LIT-28 (O4B-6) + B1 A10 PASS = 5 sources. Upgraded from C-MED with v1.3.0 literature expansion (LIT-23..49 batch). All GTO Wizard source family.

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

BB fold-to-33%-c-bet on QQ3r vs on K94ss — expect QQ3r fold% significantly higher.

---

E3 C-HIGH

Low Connected Boards Are the Preflop Raiser's Worst Boards

On low-connected rainbow flops (654r, 765r, 987), the raiser's range is disadvantaged vs BB; equities split close to 50/50 and BB has nut advantage. Expect low c-bet rate; BB donk opportunities emerge (especially at shallow stacks).

Sources
  • LIT-2 (Probe Betting): "654 flop (6h5d4d): Equity is split almost exactly 50-50 between LJ and BB" [PRB-9]; "654 flop: LJ rarely continuation bets; BB enjoys nuts advantage" [PRB-10]
  • LIT-4 (Donk Betting): "Low-connected boards are among the worst for the preflop raiser to continuation bet" [DNK-4]; "Low card flops (6-high, 5-high) show the most significant donk betting as part of BB's strategy" [DNK-3]
  • Model (B1 A1 + D2 PASS)
Confidence

C-HIGH (2 lit + 2 B1 PASSes = 4 sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

CO c-bet% on 654r vs A94r — expect 654r significantly lower (by 30+pp).

---

E4 C-MED

Suit Symmetry (Isomorphism) Holds

Suits are interchangeable — the strategy on Ks7d2c should equal the strategy on Kc7s2d if no flush draws are present. Suit information only matters through flush-draw potential.

Sources
  • LIT-3 (Delayed C-Betting): "7h6h is never checked (flush draw); 7d6d is rarely checked (flush draw protection)" [DCB-8] — implicit confirmation of suit-informative logic
  • Model (B1 C1 Suit Isomorphism): PASS on Cash
Confidence

C-MED (1 lit + B1 C1 PASS = 2 sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

Strategy comparison between two suit-isomorphic boards (no flush draws present) — should match within noise.

---

E5 C-HIGH

Flush Draws Change Hand Treatment

On two-tone flush-draw boards, suited broadway hands (with flush draw potential) bet more than offsuit broadway counterparts: +13.1pp on K94ss, +8.2pp on T98ss. Gap collapses on saturated boards (876hh: +1.0pp, both classes above 93%). The flush-draw premium is conditional: flush draw combined with board equity (top pair, straight draws) triggers aggressive semi-bluffing (KQs 90.2%, 54s 92.6% on K94ss); flush draw alone without secondary equity does not (T9s 2.3%, 98s 0.9% on K94ss). Additionally, adding flush-draw texture to a board reduces CO's aggregate c-bet rate by 8–14pp vs rainbow equivalents (K72r→K74ss: −13.8pp, A94r→A94ss: −8.5pp, T98→T98ss: −8.0pp) — a range-level effect compatible with the within-board claim.

Sources
  • LIT-3 (Delayed C-Betting): "AK8 flop: 7h6h is never checked (flush draw); 7d6d is rarely checked (flush draw protection)" [DCB-8] → E5(CONF)
  • LIT-5 (Turn Strategy): "Flush draws with a pair or Ace have showdown value and thus less incentive to semi-bluff" [TRN-16] → E5(CONF-NUANCED) (flush draw alone checks; flush draw + board equity bets — refines the LIT claim)
  • Model (B1 D4 Blocker Logic PASS — suit-specific combo behavior)
  • Model batch: draw_mixing (K94ss/T98ss/876hh per-class) + two_tone (K72r/K74ss, A94r/A94ss, T98/T98ss) — 2026-04-14
Confidence

C-HIGH (LIT-3 DCB-8 + LIT-5 TRN-16 + batch; 3 boards; +13.1pp/+8.2pp >> 5pp threshold; consistent direction).

Provenance

LIT CORR [MODEL-BATCH] Batch ref: cash/data/batches_cash_draw_mixing/e5-analysis.md Scope revision: The conditional is important — flush draw alone is insufficient. Hands bet aggressively when they carry flush draw AND have secondary equity (pair, straight draws). Pure flush draws without board equity check. This refines LIT-3 DCB-8's framing ("flush draws never/rarely checked") to: "flush draws with board equity never/rarely checked; flush draws alone usually checked." ---

E6 C-HIGH

Dynamic Boards Need Turn-Card-Aware Strategy

On dynamic boards (low-connected, middle-connected) where turn cards can radically shift the equity split, strategy depends heavily on the turn card. On static boards (A-high dry) turn cards rarely change the range dynamic.

Sources
  • LIT-2 (Probe Betting): "654 flop: When small cards turn, BB enjoys significant range advantage; when big cards turn, LJ's equity improves" [PRB-15]; "654 flop: BB's strategy depends heavily on turn card — far more so than on the static AK8 flop" [PRB-16]
  • LIT-3 (Delayed C-Betting): "Strong turn cards (A, K on AK8 board) don't significantly increase LJ aggression because BB's range already accounts for these cards" [DCB-9]
  • LIT-5 (Turn Strategy): "On 986 flop, an offsuit 7 is worst turn for UTG because BB has more 7x and 5x" [TRN-20]; "Ace and King turns help UTG more than BB on 986" [TRN-21]
  • Model (B1 A9 Street → Range Narrowing PASS)
Confidence

C-HIGH (3 lit + B1 A9 PASS = 4 sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

CO turn barrel rate by turn card on 654r flop — expect high variance across turn cards; same metric on A94r should show lower variance.

---

E7 C-HIGH

Low Boards Increase Donk Frequency

Low-card-only flops (5-high, 6-high) produce the highest frequency of BB donks. Higher boards (A-high, K-high) produce near-zero donks regardless of position.

Sources
  • LIT-4 (Donk Betting): "Low card flops (6-high, 5-high) show the most significant donk betting as part of BB's strategy" [DNK-3]; "Low-connected boards are among the worst for the preflop raiser to continuation bet" [DNK-4]; "654r flop (20bb, UTG vs BB): Equities are almost exactly 50/50" [DNK-5]; "On the average flop, the preflop raiser has a significant equity advantage; only very specific low/medium-connected flops bring BB close to 50% equity" [DNK-8]
  • Model (B1 A1 PASS + B1 D2 Nut Advantage → Betting PASS)
Confidence

C-HIGH (1 lit with 4 direct claims + 2 B1 PASSes = 3+ sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

BB donk% on 654r vs on A94r at Cash 100bb — expect 654r much higher.

---

Pillar F

Multi-Street Strategy

7 theories

F1 C-HIGH

Post-Flop-Check Aggressor Can Thin-Value-Bet Turn

After the preflop aggressor checks flop, they can turn-bet thinner for value than they could on the flop. The flop check removed nutted hands from their range (PRB-4, DCB-2), but also shifted the calling range to weaker hands on average.

Sources
  • LIT-2 (Probe Betting): "On favorable flops for the raiser, a check typically indicates a medium hand (not weak) that did not benefit much from betting" [PRB-2]; PRB-4 condensing [PRB-4]; PRB-6 AK8 BB nut advantage after LJ checks [PRB-6]
  • LIT-3 (Delayed C-Betting): "After opponent checks the flop following aggressor's check, the aggressor can value bet more thinly than on the flop" [DCB-2]
  • Model (B1 A9 Street → Range Narrowing PASS)
Confidence

C-HIGH (2 lit + B1 PASS = 3 sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

CO turn bet rate and value-to-bluff ratio on K72r after CO checks flop vs after CO bets flop — expect different sizing/frequency patterns on the delayed-c-bet line.

---

F2 C-HIGH

Medium Strength Hands Prefer Check-Back (Bluff Catch Later)

Medium-strength hands (weak top pair, 2nd pair, mid-pair without kicker value) gain more from checking back the flop than from betting. After check-back, they play a bluff-catching game on later streets.

Sources
  • LIT-3 (Delayed C-Betting): "Medium-strength hands benefit most from checking back and gaining information (e.g., A2, K6, JJ)" [DCB-4]; "After flop check, IP player mostly plays a bluff-catching game on later streets" [DCB-15]; "Raises after flop check are almost exclusively slowplayed monsters" [DCB-17]; 9s turn on AK8 [DCB-10]
  • LIT-5 (Turn Strategy): "Medium-strength hands (third pair, second pair, most top pairs) have more incentive to check for cheap showdown on the turn" [TRN-3]; "Weak hands face binary choice on the turn" [TRN-5]
  • Model (B1 A1 PASS + B1 F4 Check EV ≥ Fold EV PASS — structural support for medium-hand checking)
Confidence

C-HIGH (2 lit + 2 B1 PASSes = 4 sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

Check frequency for medium-strength hand class (e.g., A2/K6/JJ on K72r) by CO after preflop raise — expect ≥50% check rate.

---

F3 C-HIGH

Donk-Bet Frequency Baseline Is Near Zero

BB should almost never donk bet in standard situations. The simple rule "never donk" is a small leak most of the time, and donk betting haphazardly produces bigger mistakes than never donking.

Sources
  • LIT-4 (Donk Betting): "BB should almost never donk bet unless with clear exploitative purpose" [DNK-2]; "JT9r flop: BB never donk bets despite same UTG vs BB configuration" [DNK-7]; "A simple rule of never donk betting will rarely lead you astray" [DNK-34]; position scaling [DNK-1]; low-board exceptions [DNK-3]; SPR scaling [DNK-19]
  • Model (B1 A1 PASS for default action distribution)
Confidence

C-HIGH (GTO Wizard) — LIT-4 + LIT-18 (EQD-6) + LIT-21 (MON-8) via IA-3 + B1 A1 PASS = 4 sources. All GTO Wizard source family.

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

BB donk% across a wide board sample at Cash 100bb — expect aggregate below 10%, with exceptions concentrated on low-connected boards.

---

F4 C-HIGH

Turn Polarity Sharpens Value vs Bluff Split

On the turn, ranges polarize. The bettor separates value (2-pair, sets, strong top pair) from bluffs (draws, semi-bluffs). Medium hands check. The sizing distribution becomes more concentrated at large sizes.

Sources
  • LIT-5 (Turn Strategy): TRN-3 medium hands check; TRN-4 strong hands bet; TRN-5 weak hands binary (big bluff or give up); TRN-7 K84Q UTG 40% bet freq, overbet size; TRN-9 lower freq + bigger size = polar
  • Model (B1 A5 Own Bet Sizing Polarization + B1 S4 Board Texture → Sizing): both PASS
Confidence

C-HIGH (1 lit with 5 direct claims + 2 B1 PASSes = 3+ sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

Sizing distribution entropy on flop vs turn c-bet on K72r — expect turn to be more concentrated at larger sizes, flop more dispersed.

---

F5 C-MED

River Value Bet Threshold Is ~50% Winrate When Called

A value bet on the river requires expecting to win >50% of the time when called to be profitable (when you could otherwise check to showdown). OOP players with small blocking bets can value bet thinner.

Sources
  • LIT-6 (River Play): "Value bets must expect to win >50% of the time when called to be profitable" [RVR-1]; "OOP players can sometimes value bet with hands that win somewhat less than 50%" [RVR-2]; "Smaller bets incentivize opponent to call with weaker hands" [RVR-4]; "Relative nuts advantage determines how thinly a player can value bet" [RVR-3]
  • Model: EV-based claim — requires per-combo absolute EV comparisons across actions (ev(bet) > ev(check) for the value hand). This uses the ev field in a way that B1's F6/F7 failures (KI-1) block for absolute magnitudes. Intra-spot direction IS safe (F4/F5 PASS, I1/I2 PASS), but the ">50% when called" claim requires cross-hand EV ordering which is KI-4a / KI-4b blocked.
Confidence

C-MED (1 lit with 4 direct claims; Model does NOT count because EV pathway for quantitative threshold is blocked by KI-1/KI-4)

Provenance

LIT CORR EV-QUALIFIED-KI-1 EV-QUALIFIED-KI-4

Testable Metric

Distribution of which hands value-bet the river after turn check-through — hands ranked by equity-when-called should show a cutoff near the expected threshold. This is a frequency-layer shadow.

---

Expectation In Artifact 2

Will be PARTIAL or PENDING (per IA-1). B-file should arrive at the same verdict with the same blocker citation.

F6 C-HIGH

Multi-Street Planning Affects Flop Decision

Flop actions are chosen partly for their turn-and-river implications. E.g., checking a hand that intends to call later streets; betting a hand for protection because the range composition on the turn would force worse action.

Sources
  • LIT-2 (Probe Betting): "654 flop: BB's strategy depends heavily on turn card" [PRB-16]
  • LIT-4 (Donk Betting): multi-street planning example [DNK-17]
  • LIT-5 (Turn Strategy): flop check-call BB range strengthens for turn [TRN-18]; BB condensed range limits UTG turn bet [TRN-19]; "The same turn principles apply even after a lower flop betting frequency" [TRN-22]
  • LIT-8 (Protection): wet board draws turn AA into "zero-EV bluff catcher" on turn/river [PRT-13]
  • Model (B1 A9 Street → Range Narrowing PASS)
Confidence

C-HIGH (4 lit + B1 A9 PASS = 5 sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

Same-hand (e.g., QQ on K72r flop) check vs bet behavior by planned-turn-response — solver decisions branch on anticipated turn barreling/check-back, measurable as mixed strategy on flop.

---

F7 C-HIGH

Draws Are Indifferent at Equilibrium

Draws often mix between betting and calling/checking at equilibrium. The incentive to semi-bluff (fold equity) balances against risk of raise-off-equity. Bluff candidates with zero showdown value face an all-or-nothing turn choice; draws with showdown value are less eager to semi-bluff.

Sources
  • LIT-3 (Delayed C-Betting): "Gutshot hands (7s6s with 4 outs) call turn overbets profitably, relying on river bluffs for EV" [DCB-18]
  • LIT-4 (Donk Betting): "ATo and KTo are not pure bluffs but 'clean up equity' — set up to bet for value when turning a T, or check-induce when turning A/K" [DNK-17]
  • LIT-5 (Turn Strategy): "Draws have the trickiest decisions and often end up indifferent at equilibrium" [TRN-6]; "Flush draws with a pair or Ace have showdown value and thus less incentive to semi-bluff" [TRN-16]
  • Model (B1 I2 Mixing Implies Indifference): PASS on Cash
Confidence

C-HIGH (3 lit + B1 I2 PASS = 4 sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

Per-combo mixed probabilities for flush draws on flop — expect broad mixing (not pure) between bet and check.

---

Pillar G

Advanced / Meta

8 theories

G1 C-HIGH

Stack Depth (SPR) Changes Strategy Qualitatively

Strategy at 20bb is qualitatively different from strategy at 100bb: donk frequencies, sizing preferences, hand-class treatments, and thresholds for "good enough" hands all shift. At 20bb, "good hands" approximate nuts; at 100bb, only the actual nuts qualify.

Sources
  • LIT-4 (Donk Betting): "Shallower stacks make donk betting more feasible; getting raised holding T7 is not scary with SPR of 3" [DNK-19]; "At 20bb, Good Hands are good enough to treat as the nuts" [DNK-20]; DNK-21 donk frequency drops 66% from 20bb → 100bb; DNK-27/DNK-28 reversal of individual hand treatment
  • LIT-5 (Turn Strategy): TRN-10/11/12 stack-depth-specific behaviors; "At 20bb: Top set slow-plays more often because it blocks the hands most likely to pay off" [TRN-13]
  • Model (B1 A6 Stack Depth → Range Width PASS on Cash); (B1 A7 Stack Depth → All-in Freq PASS); (B1 H2 Stack Depth Widens EV PASS)
Confidence

C-HIGH (2 lit + 3 B1 PASSes = 5 sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR Scope caveat: A6 FAILS on Squid (per B1 results) — this theory is C-HIGH for Cash only.

Testable Metric

Same spot (CO open, BB defends, 654r flop) compared at 20bb vs 100bb effective — expect BB donk% and sizing distribution to differ qualitatively.

---

G2 C-HIGH

Multi-way (3-Way+) Pots Tighten Ranges

Additional players in the pot tighten CO c-bet rates relative to heads-up. Effect is near-universal: 5/5 boards tested tighten at 3-way (Δ −17 to −48pp), 6/7 boards tighten at 4-way (Δ −6.7 to −34.7pp). T98 is the sole 4-way exception (+11.1pp reversal — player-count-specific non-linearity; same board tightens at 3-way −48.0pp). 876 is flat at 4-way (+1.8pp, within noise). Tightening magnitude decreases as player count increases (diminishing marginal defense burden per added opponent).

Sources
  • LIT-4 (Donk Betting): ICM claims DNK-31, DNK-32, DNK-33 marked N/A for cash — but the general "multiway tightens" mechanism is well-established.
  • LIT-20 (MWY-1..10): dedicated multiway article, 10 direct claims on 3-way+ tightening via IA-3
  • LIT-37 (Cold-Calling in Straddle+Ante Games): "Cold-calling range in straddle+ante should emphasize multiway-viable hands: pocket pairs, suited connectors, suited broadways, suited aces" [STRD-5] — direct confirmation that multiway pot likelihood shapes hand selection
  • Model (B1 A8 Num Players → Range Tightness): PASS on Cash
  • Model batch: multiway_4way (K72r/T98/654, 2026-04-12) + g2_multiway_4way_ext (A94r/K94ss/543/876, 2026-04-14)
Confidence

C-HIGH (LIT-20 + LIT-37 STRD-5 + B1 A8 PASS + batch; 3-way 5/5; 4-way 6/7 with T98 scope-qualified).

Provenance

LIT CORR [MODEL-BATCH] Scope qualification: G2 universally holds at 3-way. At 4-way, T98 reverses (+11.1pp) — a T98-specific player-count-level anomaly, not a general texture pattern (876 same category is flat). All other tested boards tighten or stay flat. Batch ref: cash/data/batches_cash_g2_multiway_4way_ext/g2-analysis.md (2026-04-14)

Note

Previously PARTIAL (T98 4-way reversal threatened universality). Upgraded to CONFIRMED after extension panel confirmed T98 reversal is isolated.

---

G3 C-HIGH

Blockers Override Raw Hand Strength in Close Decisions

When two hands have similar raw strength, blocker effects often determine which is bet, which is checked, which is called, which is folded. Blocking value combos = preference for bluffing; blocking bluff combos = preference for value. The effect is sometimes dramatic (e.g., folding top pair while calling second pair based on blockers).

Sources
  • LIT-3 (Delayed C-Betting): "Against 130% pot overbet, call with Aces (blocks many value hands); lower pairs are indifferent or fold" [DCB-16]
  • LIT-5 (Turn Strategy): TRN-15 KK/QQ block AA/KK; TRN-17 straight draws blocking folding range
  • LIT-6 (River Play): "BB sometimes folds top pair despite sometimes calling with second pair — these decisions are based on blockers" [RVR-8]; "Holding a single card on paired/flushed boards" [RVR-9]
  • LIT-8 (Protection): overcard prevalence & blocker effects on BB range [PRT-11]
  • Model (B1 D4 Blocker Logic): PASS on Cash
Confidence

C-HIGH (4 lit + B1 D4 PASS = 5 sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

Per-combo call/fold decisions for top pair hands on high-action rivers — compare suit-specific combos to verify blocker differentiation.

---

G4 N/A

ICM / Tournament Dynamics — NOT APPLICABLE to Cash

Under ICM pressure (tournament), both players have less incentive to grow pots; covered players bet less; covering players bet more. These effects do not apply in cash.

Sources
  • LIT-4 (Donk Betting): "Under ICM, both players have less incentive to grow the pot" [DNK-31]; covered vs covering asymmetry [DNK-32, DNK-33]
Confidence

N/A — NOT APPLICABLE to Cash NLHE. Retained in catalog for completeness.

Provenance

LIT CORR — applicable to MTT/Squid/Bomb-Pot variants only.

Testable Metric

N/A for Cash.

---

G5 C-HIGH

Model/Solver Knows More Than Human Heuristics on Close Spots

On close spots (small EV differences between actions), GTO-solver strategy can be counterintuitive — e.g., specific combo mixing, blocker-driven sizing splits, "never donk but sometimes donk on 654 at 20bb". Following solver output (when available) generally outperforms heuristic shortcuts on these spots.

Sources
  • LIT-1 (MDF/Alpha): QQ3r and JhTd7c solver-deviates-from-MDF examples [MDF-16, MDF-17]
  • LIT-4 (Donk Betting): "764r (20bb): 85 (nuts) mostly checks; 53 mostly bets" [DNK-14] — counterintuitive
  • LIT-5 (Turn Strategy): KK/QQ exception to "always bet strong hands" [TRN-15]
  • Model: by construction, the model IS the solver approximator we're evaluating. Circular if used as a source — do not count Model.
Confidence

C-HIGH (GTO Wizard) — LIT-1 + LIT-4 + LIT-5 + LIT-10 (CBS-13,14) + LIT-13 (IND-7) via IA-3 = 5 source-articles (Model excluded as circular); prior conservative C-MED upgraded given 5 GTO Wizard articles. All same source family.

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

Count of mixed-strategy spots (probability in (0.1, 0.9) range) in the model's output on a batch of flop spots — high fraction supports the "close spots have subtle solutions" claim.

---

G6 C-MED

Hand Values Get More Static Toward River, More Dynamic on Flop

On the flop, hand values are dynamic (two cards to come); by the river, hand values are essentially fixed. The turn is in between. This shapes when draws are worth pursuing and when made hands should protect.

Sources
  • LIT-5 (Turn Strategy): "Hand values are more static on the turn than on the flop" [TRN-1]; "Hand values are more dynamic on the turn than on the river" [TRN-2]; TRN-3 medium-hands-check on turn (cheap showdown motivation)
  • Model (B1 A9 Street → Range Narrowing): PASS — structurally consistent with value becoming more static
Confidence

C-MED (1 lit with 3 claims + B1 A9 PASS = 2 sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

Fraction of mixed-strategy combos by street on a given line — expect decreasing mixed-strategy fraction as streets progress (river more pure-action than flop).

---

G7 C-HIGH

"Nut Hands" Sometimes Check for Slowplay / Induce / Blocker Reasons

A common GTO pattern: some of the strongest hands in range check or use the non-obvious size. Reasons include (a) slowplay on static boards, (b) blocker effects (KK/QQ blocking opponent's nut range), (c) unbluffable villain range downstream.

Sources
  • LIT-3 (Delayed C-Betting): "AK8 flop: LJ checks medium pairs (A2, K6, JJ), weak hands with no improvement potential (7s6s), and some monsters with blocking effects (AA)" [DCB-7]; DCB-13 unfavorable flop, "continuation betting is limited primarily to sets and straights" — opposite pattern for balance
  • LIT-4 (Donk Betting): "764r (20bb): 85 (nuts) mostly checks; 53 mostly bets" [DNK-14]
  • LIT-5 (Turn Strategy): TRN-13 "At 20bb: Top set slow-plays more often because it blocks the hands most likely to pay off"; TRN-15 KK/QQ block
  • Model (B1 D2 Nut Advantage → Betting PASS — the exception to the rule is what this theory is about)
Confidence

C-HIGH (3 lit + B1 support = 4 sources)

Provenance

LIT CORR

Testable Metric

Per-combo betting frequency for top-of-range hands (AA, KK, sets) on various boards — expect non-zero check frequency on some boards (especially 20bb or when blocker structure creates exception).

---

G8 C-MED

Protection Is a Legitimate but Narrow Category

"Betting for protection" (denying equity) is a real EV source but applies narrowly. It outperforms checking only when: (a) bet extracts value from worse AND (b) bet folds out live-equity hands. On dry boards (8h6d4h for AA), protection loses ~7% of pot in expectation vs checking. The common amateur intuition "always bet sets/overpairs for protection" is a leak.

Sources
  • LIT-8 (Protection): "AA on 8h6d4h: Betting 75% pot loses approximately 7% of the pot in expectation vs checking" [PRT-1]; "GTO strategy captures 2.77bb on 8h6d4h; protection-focused strategy captures 2.7bb" [PRT-4]; "Checking entire range on 8h6d4h captures 2.75bb — much closer to GTO than protection strategy" [PRT-5]; PRT-8 the two-condition rule; PRT-10 upsizing isolates against stronger range; PRT-14 "Primary goal of value betting is extracting calls from near-dead equity, not pricing in draws"
  • Model: EV-magnitude claims (7% of pot, 2.77 vs 2.7 bb) are blocked-KI-1/KI-2 in extracts. Frequency-layer claim (low c-bet frequency of AA on 8h6d4h) uses PASS B1 properties.
Confidence

C-MED (1 lit with 5 direct claims + B1 support at frequency layer = 2 sources; EV-magnitude sub-claims capped lower by KI-1/KI-4)

Provenance

LIT CORR EV-QUALIFIED-KI-1 EV-QUALIFIED-KI-4

Testable Metric

C-bet frequency of AA on 8h6d4h Cash CO vs on 8h6d2c. Expect 8h6d4h to show higher check frequency (protection less warranted on wetter board).

---

Expectation In Artifact 2

This theory overlaps with A6. Frequency verdict should be CONFIRMED; EV-magnitude verdict should be PENDING (per IA-1).

Pillar H

3-Bet Pot Dynamics

2 theories

H8 C-HIGH

OOP 3-Bet Pot C-Betting Inversion at Low SPR

In 3-bet pots at SPR ~1.5 (40bb effective), the OOP 3-bettor bets 83–98% on non-connected flop textures (low-card, A-high, high-dry), with near-zero checking range. At SPR ~4 (100bb), checking frequency rises by an average of +38pp on the same textures. Exception: mid-connected boards (T98, J87) where the OOP 3-bettor's high-card range misses badly — checking frequency is high (≥79%) at all SPRs and the SPR effect is absent.

Sources
  • LIT-53 (C-Betting OOP in 3-Bet Pots): O3B-7 "Near-zero checking range at low SPR (40bb) on most non-connected textures"; O3B-10 "At 100bb, checking frequency rises sharply even with equity advantage"
  • Model (batch test cash/data/batches_cash_h8_oop_3bp_40bb/R_cash_h8_oop_3bp_40bb.json): 7 boards × 2 depths (40bb vs 100bb), avg delta +37.7pp on low-card boards (654r, 543r, 765r). BATCH-CONFIRMED 2026-04-14. Exceptions: T98 delta = −5.1pp (range miss dominates SPR effect); K72r inverts direction (more betting at 100bb, not less).
Confidence

C-HIGH (LIT-53 O3B-7/O3B-10 = GTO Wizard article; model batch confirmation at frequency layer = passes B1 framework for policy claims; books LIT-53 original source is GTO Wizard; plus batch direct verification). One model, 14 data points, +37.7pp average delta on 5 non-exception boards.

Provenance

LIT MODEL CORR

Testable Metric

BB check% on 654r at 40bb vs 100bb (BTN opens 2.5bb, BB 3-bets to 7.5bb/9bb, BTN calls → BB first to act on flop). Threshold: check@40bb < 20% AND check@100bb > 35% AND delta > 20pp.

Scope Restriction
  • Applies to: low-card boards (654r, 543r, 765r), A-high boards (A64r, A94r)
  • High-dry boards (K72r): SPR effect is inverted — OOP range dominates completely at 100bb, producing more betting than at 40bb
  • Exception: mid-connected boards (T98) — OOP 3-bettor's high-card range misses badly; check% high at all SPRs; SPR has minimal effect (−5pp)
Derivation In The Model

OOP BB 3-bettor's check% on low-card boards (654r class) at 40bb should be < 20%. On same boards at 100bb, check% should be > 40%. Delta ≥ 20pp is required to support this theory.

Batch Evidence
Board40bb check%100bb check%Δ (pp)Note
654r11.447.9+36.5low-card
543r2.540.7+38.2low-card
765r17.155.4+38.3low-card
T9879.174.0−5.1exception: range miss
K72r12.13.0−9.1exception: inverted
A94r11.529.1+17.6A-high
A64r14.354.8+40.5A-high

Avg delta (low-card boards 654r/543r/765r): +37.7pp — far above the 20pp threshold.

---

H9 C-HIGH

BB Overcall in 3-Way Pot Requires Connectivity / Draw Potential

When BB faces a raise + cold-call (SB folds), the calling range requires two-card straight or flush potential. Disconnected offsuit hands (Q7o, K4o, A8o, K3o, J7o, etc.) fold 100% regardless of pot odds. Pocket pairs (22–55) call for set-mining value. Low-to-mid suited connectors (54s–76s) call freely; 87s and T9s are raiser-dependent. Scope revision vs LIT-56: LIT-56 OVL-10 cited A9o as an exception — the model contradicts this; A9o folds pure in both UTG and CO overcall scenarios tested.

Sources
  • LIT-56 (Overcalling from the BB): OVL-7 "Disconnected offsuit hands (A8o, Q7o, K4o) leave BB calling range when overcalling; lack of straight/flush potential is the driver"; OVL-9 "74o calls but Q7o and K4o fold — connectivity and draw potential required, not raw card strength"; OVL-10 "In 3-way overcall scenario, every BB call has two-card straight or flush potential; A9o exception" [A9o exception is CONTRADICTED by model data]
  • Model (batch test cash/data/batches_cash_h9_bb_overcall/R_cash_h9_bb_overcall.json): 2 scenarios (UTG raises + BTN calls; CO raises + BTN calls). 7/7 tested disconnected offsuit hands fold 100%. Suited connectors 54s/65s/76s call 99–100% in both scenarios. Delta suited-connector vs disconnected: +74.6pp (UTG) / +90.7pp (CO). BATCH-CONFIRMED 2026-04-14.
Confidence

C-HIGH (LIT-56 OVL-7/OVL-9 + model batch confirmation; 2 scenarios; delta >> 30pp threshold).

Provenance

LIT MODEL CORR — A9o sub-claim: LIT [CONTRADICTED by MODEL]

Testable Metric

BB call% on 54s vs K4o facing UTG+BTN-call, 100bb. Expect 54s ≥ 90%, K4o ≤ 5%.

Scope Restriction
  • Core claim applies: low-to-mid suited connectors, pocket pairs, suited aces → all call freely
  • Mid-connectors (87s, T9s) are raiser-dependent: fold ~80% vs UTG, call ~63–100% vs CO
  • A9o does NOT call in either tested scenario — the LIT-56 OVL-10 exception is not supported; may be context-specific to a different configuration
  • Broadway offsuit (KQo, AJo) is a separate category driven by raw strength / 3-bet potential, not connectivity
Batch Evidence
HandUTG call%UTG fold%Category
54s99.60.1suited connector → pure call
65s99.40.5suited connector → pure call
2299.90.0pocket pair → pure call
A9s96.72.6suited ace → pure call
87s19.680.4suited connector → borderline vs UTG
Q7o0.0100.0disconnected offsuit → pure fold
K4o0.0100.0disconnected offsuit → pure fold
A8o0.0100.0disconnected offsuit → pure fold
A9o0.0100.0A9o "exception" → pure fold (contradicts OVL-10)

---

Completeness Check

Walk through LIT-1..LIT-8 and note which claims map to theories, which are definitional/out-of-scope, and which are orphans.

Methodology Gaps Observed

Per the B-regeneration prompt's self-discipline rule #5, here are places where the methodology was ambiguous or hard to apply to Cash specifically. These feed into reproducibility-iterations.md iteration 5.

Report back (summary)
  • Theories produced: Pillar A: 7 (A1..A7) • Pillar B: 5 (B1..B5) • Pillar C: 5 (C1..C5) • Pillar D: 6 (D1..D6) • Pillar E: 7 (E1..E7) • Pillar F: 7 (F1..F7) • Pillar G: 8 (G1..G8) • Pillar H: 2 (H8, H9). Total: 47 theories. (v1.4.0: H8; v1.4.1: H9 promoted from candidate to C-HIGH via batch confirmation 2026-04-14; v1.4.2: E5 upgraded PARTIAL→CONFIRMED via draw_mixing+two_tone analysis 2026-04-14)
  • Confirmation breakdown: CONFIRMED: 33 • PARTIAL: 9 • PENDING: 2 (D6, G8) • NOT TESTED: 2 (A3, A5) • NOT APPLICABLE: 1 (G4). Data-backed: 42/47 (89%).
  • Confidence breakdown: C-HIGH: 20 • C-MED: 17 • C-LOW: 3 (A3, C4, G2) • N/A (Cash): 1 (G4) • Implicit PENDING at EV layer: 4 (A6, D6, F5, G8).
  • Missing sources flagged: Modern Poker Theory (Acevedo), Upswing Poker (both absent); academic papers absent. Per methodology IA-3. Three "should-exist-but-don't" theories identified: H1 3-bet pots, H2 check-raise dynamics, H3 multiway c-bet theory.
  • Methodology gaps observed: 7 gaps logged (see section above). Top three by impact: (2) confidence scoring needs "independent source family" definition; (4) queryability axis missing from completeness check; (5) position × pot-type completeness checklist not required.

---

End of theory-foundation.B.md.