Three limps, I raise AKo in CO

5 to the flop (10.5 SB): K56r
X to me, I bet, 3 calls in front

4 to turn (7 BB): 7x
X to me, I bet, 2 calls

3 to riv (10 BB): Qx
X to me, I bet, first player XR, second one folds.

Earlier this player played the following hand from MP. Three to flop (think it was limped pre) of QT5hh. X around. Turn Q, BB bets, MP calls. Riv brick, BB X, MP bets and snap folds when BB calls.

This hand is different of course. He's oop MW and XC two streets before XR river. It's tough to see what I beat. KQ got there as well as Queens up, and he might have slow played a set, 2P or a straight.

13:1 to call. Standard sigh call or can I find a fold?

Yes, your opponent very likely has exactly KQ, and at 8/16 you can find a fold against a nit.

I'd pay these off all the time. There's a lot of money in the pot, and villain only needs to be taking a shot at you once in a while for this to show a profit. Just because you can't see how a hand should logically not beat you, it doesn't mean that there aren't hands there that don't beat you. People do weird things.

This isn't no limit, and you're not making a decision for your entire stack. It's one big bet. When the pot is bigger than 10 big bets, I'm going to need a pretty specific reason to fold TPTK for one more bet to close the action on the river. Good for him for putting money in the pot behind and getting there on the end. Or for not finding a way to make me pay more if he had me the whole way. (If he has a set and slowplayed to the river, he didn't win anything more than check-raising the turn... which I also would have called down, and would have lost the exact same amount.)

If this is a leak, it's so rare that it probably doesn't even matter.

I can only find a fold against a very few specific players whom I have played with for a really long time and I know their habits inside and out.

And even then I might call.

At 13-1, they only need to be making a dumb play one time in thirteen for folding here to be a catastrophe.

If I can't count my history with this opponent in terms of years, this is a snap call. "Did you catch me on the river? Good for you - nice hand."

Usually they did. But sometimes they made a random stab with air, figuring it's their only chance to win. Sometimes they forgot what their hole cards actually were, or misread the board. Not often, but enough that any time the odds are 10-1 or better, I don't even consider folding against the vast majority of players.

The worst thing you can do is hem and haw about it, and then fold, and then face an avalanche of timed bluffs otr.

I never fold here but it's probably a poorly played set of 5s or 6s.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Snap fold AINEC. This player will never exploit your bet/folding tendencies and is never raising with worse. Calling is like a 0.999 bet mistake.

It's not dumb to raise here with less than AK as a bluff. It's dumb to do it too much or too little. At 8/16 everyone pretty much always pays each other off unthinkingly.

Yup. Either bet the river knowing you're folding to a raise, or at least make it not that slow / not that strained. Just pretend you barreled away w/ like T8s or something.

This level of confidence falls in the realm of the fur coat dilemma.

If the first sentence is true, the last sentence is false. And vice versa.

Can you be specific about what information you have about "this player" to make this claim?

We have a generic 8/16 player. We can use Bayesian logic to know that players grossly underbluff in this spot under the logic that "no one is folding". So, we exploit this by folding.

I recently read an xkcd comic on Bayesian versus Frequentist statisticians, where two statisticians await a phone call; the sun either exploded, or it didn't, and if a die rolls two 6's, the guy on the other end lied, else he told the truth.

When the guy on the other end said the sun exploded, the Frequentist concluded that it's statistically likely the sun exploded. The Bayesian simply offered to bet $50 on it. This is because the frequentist came into the experiment w/ no underlying model or assumptions of the sun exploding (essentially viewing it as an unknown quantity), while the Bayesian came in w/ the assumption that the sun exploding is so unbelievably unlikely, that it remains unbelievably unlikely even with this data point.

The fact is, you know how 8/16 players play. How many of them roll a hand worse than 2 pair here 1 in 14 times or more? My experience is, you can fold TPTK with confidence against a generic player at this stake, and even as high as 20/40.

So yes, maybe saying this specific player won't take advantage of us is unjustified, but on average, these people will simply never look down at A8 that they got to the river with and run a crazy check raise bluff. Maybe your games are different, but I can't remember a time playing single digits live where I called a raise on a big street with one pair and ended up winning the hand.

I'd agree if maybe a generic 8/16 player bluffs 5% (so we aren't getting killed on a call and our MoE is big enough to where a call can only be a small loser, while a fold could be a huge one, like he actually bluffs 10%), but I'd venture to say even 2% may be stretching it. With history, some might be willing to take a shot here, but those guys will make themselves known in a hurry.

LMAO! my boy JRD true to form....the guy just tried to run a bluff on river earlier,and you have TPTK...would have thought you learned your lesson. and where the hell do you get 0.999 LMAO.

Because stabbing when checked to in a small limped pot HU on the river = check raising in a big pot where a guy has bet 3 times into a field. Keep paying these off with one pair and let me know how it goes. I'll give you a hint: Not well.

Edit: Sorry, I'll improve my post for your comprehension: A guy has RAISED you on. the RIVER and you, want to call... with ONE pair...LMAO!1!!one!ONE!

At what point did he say the guy was a nit? Nits don't run bluffs on river, even HU?

TOP pair genius and 13 big bets isn't a small pot. You might wanna fix that leak..YOU FOLD TOO MUCH.

Ah yes, more dead.money specialties. Firstly assume I play like 80/160 the same way I play 8/16 (I don't, I don't fold this OL or at 40/80+), and then concatenate two posts to keep the troll going. Of course this isn't a small pot, i was referring to the pot you were referring to as evidence that this guy "just ran a bluff" (never mind they are two separate spots).

I know I'm talking to the expert of 4/8 here, but really, if you're going to just troll nonstop and try to derail every thread you enter, try to at least keep some sort of logical train of thought when you do it.

So everytime I speak its a troll huh, lmao. of course they are two separate spots and it shows the guys willing to make a move! ANd you advoccate folding TPTK???? And as for how you play LMAO (caps for you)...I've been here long enough and read enough of your post to know you have a leak and you fold to often MUBSY!

. Firstly assume I play like 80/160 the same way I play 8/16 (I don't, I don't fold this OL or at 40/80+),


YES YOU DO! You folded KK on river to a raise heads up AFTER you put in huge action! SENIOR MUBSY (caps for you)

ANNNND after you bet into the guy!

I think you've made an incorrect estimate of the denominator. I think the overall rarity of river check-raises plays a far more significant role in the decision to call. The couple times that it happens that someone does something stupid/crazy relative to the fact that river check-raises just don't happen that often swing this estimate a bit.

Your inability to recall it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Or maybe it's because you fold too often and so you never see the times you would have won.

For one big bet in an uncommon situation with a big pot, I think the donk factor is high enough to go ahead and pay it off. As I said earlier, if it's a leak, the situation itself is so rare that it just doesn't matter.

I'd agree w you, but then we'd both be wrong.

At what point did I say OP said opponent was a nit?