Check/raise flop, donkcheck turn

Shouldn't a balanced donk-checking range also contain a few hands that you intend to actually fold when facing a turn bet? If not, the the villain could exploit by never bluffing or semi-bluffing on the turn. [This is a question, not a statement. I have no donk-checking ranges myself and know little about it.]

Yes, definitely it should. For some reason I didn't think about it. That means that in this case I would have to check/fold almost all the hands which I check/called with. I think I'm missing something, cause it doesn't seem to be right.

I think that maybe all ours redsqwrl can provide some useful input.

First off this board favors the BB and playing BU I'd have a x/b range on this flop vs a good opponent, so as BB I'd also have a donking range on this flop. I'd estimate that I'd donk around 40% of my valuerange + bluff accordingly around 35-40%. The rest I'd xr with ~30-35% bluffs. I wouldn't delay anything as I don't expect my opponent to barrel turn a lot on this board.
The second important thing is that I wouldn't x/r that wildly with 5x with a lower kicker ( up to Q5-K5). Due to the xb range the flop c-bet will be much more polarized than a 100% c-bet range and thin/block x/r-s don't like that.

Plus I'd include more broadways to my x/r range, QTs,QJs, K2s,K3s, maybe even KTs,A2s,A3s, all these with a backdoor flushdraws plus sometimes AKs,AQs with a backdoor, and I'd have some of the lower backdoor suited draws in my calling range ( 76s, 87s, 86s ). One thing I dont like in your xr range is that concentrated too much around the board and it could be a problem when a card like the 7 comes on the turn and with the above described range this effect doesn't apply so heavily.

I also think that it is a bad idea to x on a card that hits my range a lot harder than it hits my opponent, cause I won't be able to build a x range that forces my opponent to bet out frequently enough. The only thing you can do about this is to avoid these situations by changing your ranges on previous streets if possible. Once such thing happens I rather bet 100% , let my opponent fold and take down the pot than give away value for him by freecards and free showdowns.

Thank you for your comment, I really appreciate it! You are completely right, my range is built around the board. I was thinkning about the avarage regular's check/raising range which includes even less bluffs and more concentrated around the flop. As I see there are only a few regulars who check back frequently enough, would you have a donking range againts someone who cbets around 100% here? In theory they will have to calldown more combos against a donk or raise than people who have checkback range.

No against a typical reg not, x/r-ing has a higher EV . Thats where block check-raises come into question. It is an expolitative counter strategy which exploits 100% c-bets with a value heavy x/r range. In this case you don't have to bluff a lot as your opponents range has a lot of draw equity vs your thin x/r-es, so he wont fold anyway - at least on the flop- ( according to the pot odds BU has to fold 26% here but that is usually a mistake IMO ). It is hard to tell how much you should bluff, because even GTO bluff %-s depend on how many hands can be peeled profitably on the board, and since we are talking about an exploitative strategy in case of a 100% c-bet, it also needs to consider the opponents tendencies, like (implied) fold equity, how much does he bet3bet (for a freecard, for value etc) how much does he raise the turn (freeshowdown, or value, or bluffs), how much does he delay to the river etc.. and that makes it even harder to give a general answer. The designed range could be good against one opponent and less good or even bad against another, it highly depends on how your opponent plays on further streets.

One guideline I use here is that I take my value range without bluffs, and take my opponents range, without the hands he can play for value vs my value range, and start adding bluffs to the x/r range so that I end up 70-30 equity range on range.This wont result 30% bluffs in most cases, because the 'bluffcatcher' part of c-bet/call range already has 10% equity at least.
And when I have this I start thinking about the ways it could be exploited, because I become vulnerable so, and try to estimate if my opponent could exploit that. For example if I start x/r really thinly like any pair, AQ, AJ stuff like that, how would my opponent react to that later. Does he raise all his value hands on the turn ? Then its fine to do this with small pairs I can bet fold them safely and if he doesn't raise the turn I can bet almost any river. But if he is or can become aware what I'm up to here, he might let me barrel though and delay his raises til the river and block x/r-es aren't a so much of a good idea anymore.

Also if you have a wide x/r range it is harder to work with and you have to x a lot of turns, on cards which hit your opponents range(for example here if an A or K maybe even a Q in this case) or when it would suck to get raised with certain hands (on a 2, 6, 7 something that gives you a draw+ showdown value) . You need to plan a donkx range on those so this part of the problem will still be there, but at least a wider set of hands also give you more room to make the moves you need.

Thank you for your answer, really interesting toughts!

I'm trying to figure out what could work on this board but with a CO vs BB situation. According to combonator if I check/raise 5x or better, to get the 70-30 range on range equity I will have to bluff only around 18%. If he notices it then he can fold a bigger % of his bluffcatcher range if I'm right. But since he has 100% cbet range which includes more garbage, wouldn't it be better to have a bit more bluffs? I'm sorry, I'm probably missing something.

Hmmm how should I explain this to you .... let me ask a question: What is your goal with bluffing in general ? What do you want to achieve ?

My main goal is to make him fold his better hands (or even worse hands sometimes) and win the pot.

But in this goal the K2, QT type of hands don't fit. I don't know, they might be the victims of this strategy so it could work properly.

Why is it a problem then if your opponent folds a wider % of his range, your wish to make him fold his better hands is fulfilled this way even better, or isn't it ?

Yes, it's true but if I bluff a little then he will buff out my weak hands with his weak hands which hands he would fold to my aggression. So I think having more combos in my bluffing range will make him fold more often his garbage, and I win the pot more frequently.

This seems to point a bit further than just making him fold better hands, right ? I wonder how you'd rate your first answer in the light of this.

Yes of course the problem is more compicated than that, like if I don't bluff enough my range will be too valueheavy and probably many other things.

And what do you think, what does this have to do with the proper amount of bluff combos ? Because your original question - where it all started - was basically: 'How much is enough ?', cause you found the number of bluff combos in that x/r range too little. Then I asked about the function of bluffing, you can bet that I didn't ask this accidentally, but that question had a purpose.

I'm sorry, think you lost me. So the weaker the bluffhands are, the stronger the hands are which villain folds.

I could give you a straight answer in one sentence, but I just don't want to make it that simple. I think it is better when one finds it on his own, because if someone isn't capable of doing that, then most likely he isn't ready to understand what he'd find. But if that helps you are guessing completely the wrong way, so you shouldn't have returned to your first line of thought.

Okay, I give it a try again. So I need the bluffhands to have a balance in my valuerange so I won't be exploitable. BUT since some of his bluffcatchers have equity and will improve sometimes I don't necessarily need to bluff a lot. Also if I bluff mostly weaker hands I will make him fold stronger hands than mine.

Getting warmer...keep thinking