I think it is all about range and vs whom you play.
Sometimes vs good players , it is not a bad idea to wait the next street to raise for value when you have a very tiny range left to cap.
That way your hand range is a bit more opaque and more difficult to play against , giving you more flexibility later in the hand .

Maybe that is why villain did not cap the turn vs jdr.

Example if he put jdr on a semibluff 3bet OOP , if villain cap jdr just c/f the while if he does not cap, jdr should fire at least one more BB on the river .

And because villain did not cap the turn , he still able to bluff raise the river if he never or rarely cap the turn in narrow ranges ( like here).

Agree. At least once per session I see a shown down hand that I wouldnt have guessed in like 50 guesses. Live players do whacky things, esp against pro types who like to make these sort of folds. I mean it could come down simply enough that this guys thinking "hey my spades didnt hit, I have Ace high, this pos is huge and this guy is good enough to fold hands here and there. Lets see if this works..."

Also I really like when people who play 1/10th the stakes in question leave like 5 or 6 replies in a row TELLING everyone how to play. I play 20 and sometimes 40 but Im way more interested in what some of these guys have to say as opposed to sharing what I think is correct.

I play those stakes as well, and it's entirely possible that he's bluffing, but that still doesn't mean necessarily he has pot odds to call. Folding here seems bad without a very solid read on how frequently the person would bluff here. Overplaying AQ also seems very implausible. It's more or less a game of "know your opponent".

+1, there are cases where you should call three, and raise the river, like if you have top set, and there's two to a suit on board, very unlikely to have top two pair, and somewhat possible semi-bluff, for example. As always "it depends".

This isn't really fair, each raise the villian's range gets narrower, and narrower. It's not as though he's clueless, but he is picking up clues with each bet.

Described opponent could have KK here, and you do get half.

+1 kinda

If the positions were reversed and the flop just went x/b/c then putting in 3 on turn seems standard. Perhaps the flop action narrows the ranges enough to make the turn a b/c? Seems like when there are so many draws and pair+draws we can 3! the turn a bit thinner for value here, though. Whether we b/c or b/3 turn, I like x/c river to accomplish two things: induce from draws or hands that won't call a bet and also to keep us from considering a fold.

Villain can be tricky (not always in a way that makes 'sense' to me) and likes to put in lots of action w almost all of his draws. He also comes alive on the big streets more than most. imo

No hate for the turn 3b. No hate for the river fold either if his read is THAT GOOD, and he thinks he can walk this tight-rope. I don't think I fold here. But hey! Maybe jdr plays better than I do.

add: I mean, you fold here, and you're not able to sell that you had something like JJ or a stone bluff, then people start taking shots at you at unexpected times. You may start to find yourself second guessing. This can drive a player crazy. I think a sanity call doesn't cost too much here even if it's -EV. I don't think the chances he's bluffing here are very high, but the pot has reached a medium to large size, and it's only one bet. How -EV do you think this call is jdr?

add: IMO, I prefer to occassionally throw a stone bluff at a time like this against these opponents, because

1) It usually pays itself back in the session itself, or in later sessions, even if you are caught bluffing
2) Sometimes they do fold.
3) People are less likely to stab at you if you are willing to stab back, and make unexpected plays.
4) Sometimes you just have a tell that they are bluffing and have to take a stab like a rando-3-bet with mid-pair to air which turns out to be good

I prefer the bluffer to the bluffed.

How strong we need to be for a bluff catcher if an overpair is not good enough ?
Unless we are very transparent with our lines ?

Yea it's supposed to.....but not in this case, pretty obvious JRD had vil's range just as wide as it was preflop... after turn action. But hence my point, if the guy is so balanced that none of his actions give you any info and hence u have no clue where you are...why lead river? c/c.

Also I really like when people who play 1/10th the stakes in question leave like 5 or 6 replies in a row TELLING everyone how to play. I play 20 and sometimes 40 but Im way more interested in what some of these guys have to say as opposed to sharing what I think is correct.[/QUOTE]

I would NEVER dare tell you "pros????" how to play lmao...but when something doesn't make sense to me...I comment. So you play 20-40 sometimes..is that a reflection of your skill or your bank account? My guess would be the later, but does it even matter? If you have a valid point does it suddenly become invalid because of stakes you play? o and FYI...WHO CARES WHAT YOU LIKE!?

Sometimes vs good players , it is not a bad idea to wait the next street to raise for value when you have a very tiny range left to cap.

Who said JRD was good???? LMAO...just kidding JRD...kinda lmao!!! Anyway, if you say so. Guy has a monster, just got reraised and there is a flush draw out there..and just calls hu...once again if you say so...spade falls on river and kills action, but just smooth call with your monster in a LIMIT game lmao...

An over pair is too strong to be a bluff catcher, imo.

I will stake JDR against you any day. Not that he would need me to.

I would NEVER dare tell you "pros????" how to play lmao...but when something doesn't make sense to me...I comment. So you play 20-40 sometimes..is that a reflection of your skill or your bank account? My guess would be the later, but does it even matter? If you have a valid point does it suddenly become invalid because of stakes you play? o and FYI...WHO CARES WHAT YOU LIKE!?[/QUOTE]



You will go through life with a lot of things not making sense to you because when multiple people explained why you are wrong you just shout them down and maintain your flawed position.

Agree
The reason I would not fold the river .
Even if I 3bet the turn.

i mean I would not fold the river if villain would of cap the turn , hence losing 2 more BB.

Here villain did not cap the turn but raise the river.
Still 2BB, same price.
Huge pot as well.

this. that guy is destined for a life of "I'm right fk all y'all"

I won't go as far as the previous two posts but I definitely found it interesting OP posted this hand for feedback, received feedback yet remained convinced he was right in a hand that he played horribly. I have played 2-4 limits all the way up to 20 40 and have always observed the best players can admit fairly easily when they misplay a hand and learn from it.

I'm going to address this post directly since it's a pretty massive jab.

1) I've already acknowledged I'm overfolding by making this play. However, I take a lot of exception to hand waving "pot is big" type arguments, because sometimes it doesn't matter.

2) I'm not convinced my line was right. However, listing hands he never has for value isn't exactly a compelling argument as to why it's wrong.

You're not allowed to hate the 3 bet and then still argue that I should call down. If we wanted to take a showdown line, we don't 3 bet the turn. And how much are we really being exploited when we've numerous 2 pairs, sets, and some straights that can call this river?

You can call the 3 bet too ambitious, or you can call the fold too exploitable. But it can't be both, because by definition, if I shouldn't be 3 betting this hand for value, then I shouldn't even have it in my flop xr, turn b3b line, let alone calling the river raise with it.

mmmm, I dunno about that. I think the argument here is either is that your hand is just strong enough to call the turn raise and check call the river, or its so strong that you can bet/call the river. I think people are in one of two camps but not both.

People are saying that you took Option 3, which seems to be the worst possible option. You put more money in the pot than you needed to and still folded.

That pretty much sums up the problem I see with this line. It can't be correct to put in the max amount just to fold to one bet. Sure you're probably lighting it on fire but I sorta live by the "better to lose on bet than the whole pot" rule in bloated pots.

That's exactly what I did. I'm not saying Option 3 is best, but what I am saying is that Option 3 isn't bad solely because of your reasoning.

Rather than ramble, I'd pose a question as to what hands you would fold the river with, given that you've arrived in this way? If the answer is "none", then what incentive does villain have to bluff? But then circularly, if villain has zero incentive to bluff, then why would you ever pay off a hand that can't beat his value range? But then circularly again, if you aren't paying off these hands, then suddenly villain has plenty of incentive to bluff, meaning you have incentive to call a ton.

We can go on, but essentially, removing a branch just leads to that circular logic.

Once again, you guys are likely right in that not showing down is worse here than missing a bet of value in the times I am ahead with this hand (and honestly a line of x/c x/r/c is probably much better than the line I took, as I never look to fold my hand if I delay all the way until the turn), but listing the biggest con of a taken line isn't a compelling reason to remove that branch of the game tree entirely.

I think its ok to not have a "bet/3bet turn, bet/fold brick river" game tree branch in live 20/40.

I happen to think this line is best used at exactly live 20/40 for what it's worth. Like if he had AQ I think his line is actually quite reasonable. Anyway, I don't think jdr should fold this hand, but there are certainly villains at these stakes where his line is perfect even with this hand despite the fact that it's massively exploitable. The problem with posting the hand in those cases, however, is that in order for it to be right, your read needs to be specific and correct such that meaningful feedback on 2p2 is almost impossible.

This is why I find myself almost never posting.
The hands that I play that I think are interesting enough to post, end up being pointless to post because they're based on incredibly specific reads.