He would have to think you are overbet bluffing a lot for the play to work, because a lot of your overbet value hands are flushes you won't fold. Then he needs to have some missed draw or something that he c/ced two streets with but can't beat a bluff if he calls again.

Also, if he somehow had c/ced 2 streets as the pfr and had some missed draw, he might lead the river rather than going for a c/r bluff.

Calling a play a "bad bluff" and then advocating an exploitable fold versus the same play is just fundamentally incorrect somewhere. DUCY?

It's irrelevant who we are up against, or what the details of the hand even are.

That's all I'm saying...

It could be a bad bluff against your range for overbetting the river and still be an unexploitable fold with a straight. You could be making the same bet with the nuts or 2nd nuts which you wouldn't fold.

Obviously, if villain were to bluff c/r it would be because he thinks you are overbet bluffing a lot, not primarily to get you to fold a straight.

All I said was don't call a potential bluff a "bad" bluff if you are advocating an exploitable fold versus the bluff.

I believe this is true across every poker hand, and one of the most common mistakes people make when talking about hands.

Anyhow I don't want to derail anymore due to my simple comment, sorry.

This is pretty obvious if a strait with the blocker is basically the bottom of our betting range (and it's gotta be damn close to the bottom when we give villain this price on a bluff.) I already noted this in one of my first posts. A strait with the blocker is probably not the bottom of our range here, nor the bottom of our percieved range.

Were uncapped, of course, minus blockers. Nobody is arguing that.
Heres an overly simple hypothetical, You openraise to 25BBs headsup with another 75BBs behind, and you have 100% of hands, villian shoves. Folding TT here is "exploitable" but I could use the same argument you just made yet its pretty irrelevant, "Well I woulda done the same thing with AA or KK so I can just fold my TT"

No, if villain were to bluff c/r its because villain thinks we fold often enough to make it the most profitable line. Often I bluff to move people off a range of made hands and some bluffs, not to "re-bluff" them.

In general, yes, but here you would rarely expect a fold if the pot it plus bet was a value bet. A straight is probably the bottom of OP's value range for this play.

Anyway, villain in an 8-game 3x it preflop and check/calls flop and turn as pfr. This looks so old school and also like he has some kind of hand. I would doubt villain would think of bluff c/ring in this situation.

Re: flop, there's a lot of value in folding out small PPs, and I think I'm getting checkraised never and I plan on barrelling pretty often.

Also, some thoughts I posted in HSNL thread

-Re: Preflop

Ante is 700 so 10.1k in preflop pot. Andy raises to 9k, I'm getting over 2-1 to call. Folding seems terrible to me especially since I have position and a relatively large postflop edge on him in NLH. I do agree that 3bet>call but I don't see anything wrong with calling, especially one hand after 3betting button vs UTG and mucking at showdown vs 66 on QQ5T3 and also given the fact that Chris Klodnicki is SB and has about 20BB to start the hand and I can either call if he reshoves and Andy folds or fold if he reshoves and Andy doesn't fold. In this exact spot with history and stack sizes I'm probably 3betting 65% calling 35 or so.

-Re: River Sizing

How often do you see him folding QJ to a 1.05x pot bet? How about to a 60% pot bet? What's your answer if he has KT instead? I think his calling frequencies are similar enough in each case that 1.05x pot is the superior betsize, but I could be convinced otherwise.

-Re: River Call

In hindsight I agree that Andy's bluff frequency is probably ~0%, but he is also a really smart guy and I wouldn't be shocked if this wasn't true. I do think the fact that he's more of a limit player and wants to avoid big NL pots with someone like me matters quite a bit though. At the time I did the following math in my head: if his only hands are AsJs or AsKx (way oversimplifying but probably reasonably accurately giving a ratio of his value hands to bluff hands, I think stuff like 7s5s just isn't in his preflop range), he only needs to turn his AsKx into a bluff 6.67% of the time he has it for a call to be neutral cEV. That said, it's very bad both ICM wise and because of my perceived edge in the tourney to take a neutral cEV spot, but it seemed reasonable to me that he'd be turning it into a bluff 15-20% of the time, in which case folding is criminal. As for the timing, agree that insta = easy decision, but I think if anything that just skews his distribution more to hands with the As as he might not snap jam something like J9s (he probably does, but not 100%). It seemed like the kind of thing where he could have decided before I bet that he was shipping over any bet too, in which case he may not even have noted my sizing before shoving and his range could be wider and contain more bluffs. In hindsight I think I overthought this decision quite a bit and "he's a limit player not trying to play huge pots in NL" probably outweighs everything else, but while I think it's a fold I don't think it's a slam dunk.

I think betting big>betting medium because like you said in your second post, I think he just has hands that he's usually calling with (2pair+) and hands he's usually folding (1pair-) regardless of sizing (within reason), so I think a 1.05x pot bet has more value than .6x pot. If he's hero folding QJ way more to the former betsize though then I think I should bet smaller. People don't tend to fold 2pair to me very often though.

i am not sure that this assamption is correct

OP villain opened always opened 3x?

First time he opened in NL round, I'm sure it's his standard though given that his stack was ~180BB and antes are huge.

just wanted to say thx. ur thought process is illuminating

I wasn't suggesting picking a smaller sizing, but you said Andy was smart. Think about what you said (or what I said) about his range's elasticity. I think the logical conclusion is that we have to either go very big to be balanced (i.e. big enough that he considers folding 2p plus) or small enough that folding his best one-pair hand is exploitable. I think picking a sizing that strays too far from the inflection points makes balance a difficult proposition, because we're either spending so much more on our bluffs that we need a lot of value hands, or getting so little value out of our hands that we need a lot of bluffs. I think given how few folds you can expect on the turn, and how hard it is to make hands better than two pair, it's pretty hard for your range to be wide enough to manage either with any semblance of balance.

All that said, I'd probably pile here against someone as smart as Andy. But you're a better player than I am and I may be misunderstanding how best to construct a balanced range, or underrating how exploitable someone smart in a 50K tournament is in one of their worse games where thinking like "I don't want to play big NLHE pots and go broke" might be stronger than I believe.

Meh I don't think he's ever bluffing