I agree his range is highly polarized, the only question is obviously if the right percentage is bluffs. I offered an argument for why he might have enough bluffs, the main counter-argument seems to be simply that it is very uncommon for villians of any type at this level to have enough bluffs to call here. It might be true, I don't really know. I'm not sure the conversation can go beyond this level without more information.

Don't forget me, I argued for the possibility of a call too

I think he bluffs here only about 10% of the time. (that includes turning his hand into a bluff)

This is the truth. Im just making an educated guess on his bluffing % based off of what I have seen and I feel he bluffs alot less than some of you guys. Thats pretty much all there is to it. I dont think his stats are as huge a deal here as they would be in other spots. Of course I will look him up lighter in many situations but I feel this is not the spot for it. Donks take this line with huge hands and Im assuming he is a donk from his stats.

yea, no more progress can be made on this thread discussing this, we have pretty much analyzed it fully. if anyone has a new angle i would be glad to hear it. otherwise i am very curious about what happened, although it doesnt truly matter in the long run. i would like to hear Pokey's opinion though..,

why isnt any1 berating OP for giving villain great implied odds on his 3bet, if he thought the fish would call ..he could have bumped it up a little more and probably had an easier decision on the river....

This is the third time you've said this in this thread. It is wrong. We're playing this hand to maximize expectation and future 'better' spots are irrelevant. If we lose we can reload and those spots still exist.

We can clearly see from his stats that this guy is a maniac. For him to be playing 55% of his hands, going too far with them (from Pokey's description) and still have an AF of 2.3 shows this guy is a maniac.

Pokey, I'm not sure if you use it or not but the "bet river" stat in PAHud is a very useful statistic to have up and can really help sway close decisions like this one.


This guy is a fish, we can't assume he has a thought process or is putting Pokey on a hand here.

It is absolutely entirely possible that he turns one pair hands into bluffs here as well. I'd never assume his range was polarized in the slightest.

He wasn't planning this hand, he didn't think on the flop or turn that he was going to shove the river, it was a random decision he made at the time. No matter what his hand he could easily have played it differently on the river depending on how he felt at the time, thinking otherwise is giving him too much credit.

You can't assume that he's the type to slowplay if he has a big hand but is also the type to shove the river when he catches his draw. If he's the slowplaying type why wouldn't he check the river to trap with a draw that hit, if he's not then why wouldn't he raise the flop or turn with his made hands? You're making stuff up to suit your argument. The answer is we don't know unless Pokey tells us he's a trapper. The stats certainly don't suggest it.

Pokey........................

He raised 3BB more then a pot sized raise as it is. You'd usually only do 1BB more then pot and then only when OOP. I can't see how you'd make your raise size any bigger then Pokey did and still expect to get action.

just raising to 18 would make this alot smoother to play postflop......and i dont think we have to worry about not getting action from this villain (i think he would call a raise larger than 18 ,but 18 works just fine)....

But if pokey usually makes his 3bets this size then I don't think he should raise more. Villain would probably he less inclined to call down. Or might pick up that he has a big hand, even if he is a fish.

I realized after I posted I was abusing the word a bit. In this case, given the action, a bet like this with a smaller pocket pair is essentially a bluff, and I think even the villian would know that, or he would just check/call, so it is in that sense that I mean his range is polarized. The only hands he's shoving for value are much better than our hand, and the rest are intended as bluffs.

No offense but this is plain dumb. You might as well say "I have AA/KK - can you outflop/outdraw me, 'cause if you can I'll give all my money away". It is overbet as it is and if you're scared of playing AA/KK AF, maybe you should just shove pre

His stats may match the "random bet/bluff donk profile", he has no idea of hand range and can't put you on a hand, no need to look for more logic in his move.

He may have decided that it was a good spot and a good pot to bluff

Observation of previous hand is the key here to make a decision (what does this bet sizing on the river means in past hands ? does he go crazy in big pots ?)

In my (small experience) at lower level (NL25 and 50) on average a call here is good more than 30% of time.

You will often found (as suggested before) one paire turned into a bluff here.

well obv OP 3bet 4.5x villains bet with the intention to cut implied odds and make it easier to stack villain postflop i just think he should have raised a lil bit more would make things easier for OP postflop(pretty much getting a decent SPR for our hand whereas we get a semi bad SPR for our hand)

i think this is a pretty accurate estimate here. and all we beat is a bluff. there is no way he is bluffing more then 1/4th of the time here imo. this looks like a pretty easy fold unless u have a read that the villian in question is a complete manaic who isnt even looking at his hand or sumtin.

there is just no chance he makes it to the river nearly enough here with air as well as then decides to shove this river. this is just unheard of and almost never happens

This EV calculation is wrong. You're not going to win $334.50 if you take down the pot, you're going to win $334.50 - $133.

Take this example: we're heads up with 100BBs and we push with 50% equity (this is a 0EV situation, obviously):

Incorrect:

EV = 0.50*(+$200) + (1-0.50)*(-$100)
EV = 100 - 50
EV = +$50

Correct:

EV = 0.50*(+$200-$100) + (1-0.50)*(-$100)
EV = 50 - 50
EV = $0

Also, note that you can simplify this calculation down with a little algebra to:

EV = equity * (total pot - $ to call) - $ to call

So, the correct equity here is actually:

0 = x*(+$334.50 - $133) - $133
133 = 334.50x - 133x
201.5x = 133
x = 66%

So, we need to be good here > 66% of the time here to make this call profitable.

I've been thinking about this for the past hour and I think this is a call. Here's my reasoning.

However bad villain is he has to realize when calling the turn bet that betting is his only option on the river pretty much regardless of whether he has hero beat or not since it's pretty clear hero wants to go to war with his hand. If he has hero beat he will bet here because there is a chance that hero might just check behind. And if he's behind then, seeing as he's very aggro, he should be afraid that hero will possibly ignore the river card and bet again (and then there is no way he's winning). I honestly do not believe this villain could c/f the river after check/calling the two streets.

So I guess my point is - put in whatever ranges you like, regardless, we should NOT be surprised by this river donk, that's exactly what he should have done and did. And since we basically KNEW on turn that's what's going to happen, we happily call.

nice post

The thing about playing deep is villain can call with almost any 2 cards and be correct in doing so. Trying to price him out by over raising is not only announcing your hand strength but losing out on potential value.

The AF of this is guy is 2.3, so he is more willing to bet/raise than call and/or he is doing very few calling. If he had flopped a pair or a pocket pair he would have bet the flop for value no? he must be drawing or trapping or total bluffing. will he bluff (missed draw or total) more than 28% in this spot? wouldn't his AF higher if that was the case. Am I totally out? my all-life total numbers of played hand is 2k....so be kind

I do not think this is correct Ispiked. You first example is correct. For example if you have 50% equity and the villain bets $100 you have $100 to call. Then the calculation is

EV=.50*($100)+(1-.50)*($-100)
EV=0
$100 is the money that is already in the pot
and the amount is the amount to call

In pokey's hand the pot was something like $200 and then the villain bet $133. So you have to call $133 to win the pot of $334.50

0 = x*($334.50)+(1-x)*(-$133)
and the calculation has already been done this turns out to be something like
x=28.4%

So we only need to be good more than 28% of the time

In a vacuum, we put hands into Pokerstove and play the odds. In real life, we think about ranges AND HISTORY before making our decision.

If I've seen villain get out of line like this on the river before w/ a weak hand, I'll insta-call. If this is the first time he's bet huge, I'm probably folding.

How do we have to be good 65% of the time??
He didn't overbet the pot.

Even if villain pots, we get 2:1 and need to be good 1/3 of the time.

heh...I should really learn how to do this manually.

even if he bluffed the 3 streets 10% of time. the only hand i could see him drawing are beating us; do you see others ? If not, i will no more give my money to this villain