Im kind of confused, earlier you referred to check/mr as a suboptimal play in order to prevent river mistakes. Now you are arguing it is preferable in the case on little information, which i disagree with, and then countering that argument that we can use population tendencies (which i have mentioned several times across multiple threads as a good baseline to take) but anyway.
I don't need to know any information on my opponents at these kinds of stakes to know they will have exploitable tendencies, which in the min raise example, again means they won't know when to push narrow EV spots. So instead of facing 2 more VB's, where you're in a tough river decision, you only face one. I should note, there's very few times you use this kind of play. But it was brought up in 2 hands so we're discussing the merits of it, but most importantly, when it should be executed.
All that means is that you don't know frequencies, but you know enough about opponents in general at those stakes. They don't know how to get max value. That's all you need to know.
But if you want to say that you can take the average to good regular at your stakes, and tell me there aren't huge differences in their barreling tendencies, and how they understand value vs. texture, I think you know you'd be fibbing a bit. 
"A theoretically sound" game purely depends on how you're defining that as you know. To me, that means I'm playing balanced ranges against opponents who know what the hell they are doing, and I'm exploiting the heck out of the rest of my opponents.
But to apply GTO play to most players, even regs at 100nl, is a mistake imho. I'm all for people learning game theory play, and thinking through ranges and betting frequencies, because I think it makes you a better player.
But if someone is teaching me the perfect way to cast my line fishing, and all the theoretical spots that there's typically fish and how to drag my line properly, and I don't bother to look down and see the huge schools of fish right at my feet, I'm just wasting my time and going hungry.
But on that note... we should take a look at the new GTO Leak Analyzer in Leak Buster at some point also. I was thinking about having Alex Sutherland come in this thread and go over some points about GTO Rangebuilder, and we can discuss some higher level concepts. I think it would be cool if everyone is down for it.
Dont see how the bolded is remotely relevant, you just take the aggregate across the population sample, if 80% underbarrel with only 20% bluffs and 20%
bluff too much with 90% we simply aggregate this data, this is what population tendencies are based on, and what you refer to later in your post.
If we have population tendencies I dont know why we cant just make good turn/river decisions, sure by raising you face one bets rather than two, but your
equity when money goes in differs vastly,
there are 3 possible optimal lines v an opponents when we have strictly bluff catchers and he is strictly polar, we can call/call call/fold and fold.
Lets say opponent doesnt bluff enough on the turn, we have an easy fold on the turn then.
If he bluffs too much (or even enough) on the turn and also bluffs to much on the river then we call/call
If he does the same but doesnt bluff river enough we call/fold.
You can either argue that population tendencies are insufficient for us to have general reads on this situation or you can argue that we can use them. assuming the later argument, if people bluff too much both streets the optimal line is call/call. We make +EV calls on both the turn and river, our equity on the river is quite good, we put 2 bets in against all of his nut range, but we also put two bets in against his airballs and have a sufficiently high ratio to lead to a profit.
If we minraise the turn, we put 1.5 bets into the pot v his nuts, but we only win 1 bet from his bluffs. so even tho we put less in when we are beat we also have far poorer equity when the additional bets go into the pot.
If call/fold is the optimal line then we put 1 bet in against enough of his bluff catchers and win, and some of them succesfully bluff us out on the river. but enough give up to make it preferable to just folding the turn.
If we then minraise turn, we put 1.5 bets in against his nuts, but have the benefit of forcing out most (realistically usually all) of his bluffs so thats a net gain, at the cost of putting in an additional half bet against his nuts.
Im all for exploitative play, and my standard is to make highly exploitable call or folds in these hands, and as well as a host of other highly exploitable adjustments i make with fish or weak regs in the game, so im not really willing to conced that i use suboptimally balanced approaches v players.
Sorry, I didn't really address this:
"If we knew his betting frequencies we could perfectly exploit him. If we are only against a player vbetting the nuts or close to it (and somehow cant infer it), we still dont lose money in theory, because he x and gives up all his bluffs and we win the pot, or he doesnt bluff enough on an earlier street and we win more pots on the turn."
That's my point though. In smaller samples, you don't know this.
So we're operating from more general group information (and maybe this is what you're misunderstanding), which means, if I have a narrow EV spot,
and I have no idea how aggressive someone is, how much money do I want to call to get this hand to showdown (if I'm not turning it into a bluff)?
If you want some honest opinion too, I think you're likely projecting how you think about the game too much onto your opponents. Trust me, they don't know as much as you might think they do.
There is absolutely no reason we cant aggregate population tendencies across player types weighted by probability, if we want we can infer correlations from a bunch of stats that converge more quickly, or from the number of tables they play, whether they are hidden, what device they are using etc etc. If you cant come up with a reasonable estimation of how aggressive people are in triple barrel spots then I dont know how you make any decision in any hand with an unknown.
To the 2nd point, im not concerned about how much money I put into the pot, Im much more concerned about our equity on the marginal dollar that foes into that pot. im not willing to sacrifice equity in the pot to keep the pot smaller, as I indicated above I believe to be the likely occurance from minraising.
And again if we are struggling to play rivers profitably in these spots the turns cannot be by definition neutral EV, we can just fold turns if we cant play the river well. we can always fold neutral EV spots, they wont affect our bottom line at all.
Its been a long day so im sure you will forgive any typos or obvious errors.
