But the x-shove line also include mediocre combo draws. How do we differentiate them?
Very good and hard to answer question. Hands that can check-raise usually can also bet-bet, they are similar but there some little nuances - usually, but sometimes hard to identify (or pattern makes no sense - quite often^^).
First I want to say you don't have to hit the GTO-frequencies perfectly accurate. You don't even have to have the combos assigned to the correct lines perfectly (!). If you check-shove a hand that should have 2barreled it's barely an EV-loss cause you won't be exploited doing this anyways. Haha. Applying logic helps huge, thinking through the situation. It's a concept introduced by Chambers in his "advanced plo theory" that should be familiar to everybody, you can implement those in your thought process without even having knowledge about solver-strategy, but you gotta formulate those thoughts (and which is harder, weight them up against each other). Is it a nutpeddler? Well maybe just fold. You don't have showdown-value and he checks the river? Well maybe just bluff shove. You have nice blockers , you've seen him value-potting the nuts and now his sizing is weird? Well maybe just test him with an one-and-done bluff-raise. Usually you won't have it right according to GTO anyways. Even high stakes players deviate massively. Anyways. If simplifications are helpful, you can do it, as long as you overall strategys' balance does not fly out the window. So what does this mean?
Let me illustrate this in a scenario where SB is the PFA, 3bets and BU flats ip. The flop is Q♥:7♥:4♠:, very similar situation where the 3bettor is oop at low SPR.
With the pot/halfpot strategy we bet 50% and check 50%, this is not too difficult and we get a feeling for that quickly. It becomes difficult selecting the right amount of hands for a half pot strategy and those for pot, to tune right the frequencies with specific combos where knowing 2card combos is not sufficient as sidevalue often plays a big role. This is lots of work as we'd have to research the specific combos in our GTO-software and add them upp, differentiating all those different side cards, how often they are possible, avoid rendundancies etc. Work aside the tables basically. We kinda have to do that to become better and ideally complement it with exercising solver training that particular spot.
So on that flop we halfpot 41% and pot 11%. 11% is not massive, we might simplify that. Those 11% pot usually are hands easier to identify (less combos, obvious structure) and from which we know now can check-raise aswell. So seeing the check-raise 15% we'd just go ahead and design a strategy where we half-pot >50% betting combos we can evaluate quite accurately combowise and put like ~5% on top to a total of check-raising 20%. We don't lose much value but it's way easier to execute, as we'd have just 1 sizing and also have to worry less about playbility oop. We get a grasp on a roughly solid strategy more quickly and this is important. If villain checks back too much you might check-raise even less and cbet halfpot at a 60% frequency, but you gotta have to bet lots hands and your are not allowed to fold all of your checks unless your cbet freq becomes really high - that's the gist of the story. It's not important to perform a perfectly accurate GTO strategy, we rather like to be balanced roughly, put combos into lines that make sense (at least for us), compare it with what villain is doing and then then try to figure out what are (obvious) exploits.
If you got a feeling for what to do in that spot, you can also transition slowly back to implementing a pot strategy again. Or you can have a hand you really just wanna pot and still pot it deviating from your strategy, also not the end of the world. What you don't want to do is, trying to hit nuts or specific handstrength categories following a fit-fold strategy, chasing odds or spew-bluffing without honest assessment of the situation nor reflection on our strategy (like bluff-barrel on the river but we actually have no idea what villain has check-called on the turn).
On Q♥:7♥:4♠: a :Qx::Qx: top-set is a superstrong hand (monster) so you should know we don't pot it. Solver even checks it more often than betting (60:40) facing a bet check-calling it (80:20 over check-shove). Reason for this is, we block villains value stack-off range (top-2pair, top-pair+fd etc.). Great visibility and playability + SDV speaks for check-call rather than check-raising (when equity is strong enough to continue after we have decided not to bet). So blocking villains value range with a monster is a reason not to bet, but which top-set want to check-raise? This is very clear in solver. We check-shove the naked ones without a single ♥ and on top of that we want to check-raise those having a triple-bdfd :spade::spade::spade: (because they block villains bluffs that try to improve their on turncards but could not call a check-shove, villain should not be bluffing randomly but try to sneak in backdoor equity that might add up to justifying an odds-allin).
If we look at :4x::4x: it's the opposite. Here solver cbets at 80% frequency unblocking the defending value candidates (top-pair, etc..). You might think, oh but our hand is vulnerable should not we go pot? Nope, since we check a high frequency on turn shifts, we are not going any places with such a strong hand like bottom set and should defend against a float (for example solver check-calls 99% of :4x::4x: on a 2♥: completing a flush). So planning ahead for various textures is also a big thing. On the river it gets trickier and we'd have to reevaluate the whole hand, assess value on blockers and often it's a gut thing kinda but I knowing those basics should put you ahead against the average abc-regular who often is lost in 3bp-dynamics. He sees the flush turn, Does not give anyone implieds so his frequency drops massively, the check-fold on turn or river becomes the standard play -they just can't call without big flush but truth is, they won't have it often enough. Since they cannot deviate from a play they consider "reasonable/solid" assessing an exploit line up here gives you the edge needed. Now play yourself sth. like ABC against the bad players who just overplay handstrengths and you should be able to crush low stakes quickly.. imagine repeatedly bluff-floating 100% of your flush blockers without SDV, stabbing cheap ott with half-pot, where villain has no solid defense strategy (you could start with a nutflushblocker try it against someone you labelled as tight, I ended up quickly bluffing basically any flushblocker lol and now it's my standard line). Villain sees your solid 25% vpip and gives up one massive pot after another just like on an assembly line finally having flushes ends up shoving giving you an easy decision. It might be even obvious what you are doing but people always have troubles leaving their comfort zones, not just in poker.
That top-/bottom-set example with each arguments in their respective is just an example. When searching for patterns in GTO-solutions which is tiring indeed you will find such though. If not, you can also set up your own rules that make sense for you! You have to be creative. You might have an idea which you apply, later on find out that it is not optimal, great! You'll need some excel sheets and simplifications to organize all of it. You'd need to repeat and memorize it cause you cannot do beside the grind. But we gotta do something and we gotta start somewhere. Being paralyzed confronted with the complexity of this game is a main danger/obstacle when it comes to starting your studies. Asking the question what is the difference between hands of check-shove and bet-bet is exactly such a first step. You gotta follow through though. Then repeat if for other textures. What's our SB 3bet range actually? How ofte do we hit certain handstrengths? What's villain tendency on the button? Etc.. It is a never ending journey....
What does the B stand for in BMLs. I'm assuming M and L stand for middle and low respectively. What does imba mean?
broadwaycard so 
- :Tx:. Yes and imba means imbalanced so "not balanced well".
Time to read and implement this reply 
