Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob148
What's the worst hand you bet call here on the river?
That's really the question you should be answering and attempting to justify.
Quote:
I ask because the very next hand down the line should be bet 3 bet or bet folded. I also choose to bet fold AJ in this spot, but being aware that it's an attempted exploit is useful when considering calling down with KJ.
You say "the next hand down" as if the hand ranges here are wide enough to accept that you should be putting entire hand types into these categories instead of talking about which specific combos of hands you should be doing something with, or some other way of diminishing the number of hands that you're bet-folding.
Quote:
I'm not saying that bet folding KJ, bet calling KQ, and using a mixed strategy with AJ is ultimately correct, but the method of estimating the margin and creating a strategy that is consistent with the proper selection of action regions is the best we can do without solvers.
I'm doubtful that you should have much of a 3-bet-bluff range here at all.
Let me put it this way:
If you *NEVER* 3-bet-bluff on the river, how much EV are you giving up? I would argue that it's practically nothing, even in the GTO sense.
However, I would suggest that making the mistake of trying to find a 3-bet bluff where there shouldn't be probably costs more than what you would theoretically gain if you did it right. So your overall strategy is better served by *NOT* looking at this spot and trying to find this play somewhere.
It's the type of argument I bump into when talking about statistics with people. Yes, this one group has a mean that 0.01 larger than the other one. We can both do that calculation and agree this is the case. But your sample size is not large enough where this difference carries meaning, and you have a statistical tie. So arguing that one is better than the other misses the point.
I think you've taken a theoretical claim (there should exist a 3-bet-bluff range), but because you have so much noise in all of your other estimations that you have going on, your conclusion is going to be wrong -- not on the basis of the theory being wrong, but because you've neglected the other information that feeds into your analysis. You are drawing a conclusion stronger than what the data supports.
I can be wrong about this. But you're going to have to do more than just spitball a cutoff.