Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanishmoon
With all due respect, this is Petitio Principii in action here.
I agree he'd raise with non-JJ sets. And we all agree the center point of his range is a strong Jack. But he's already flat called 120 dollars worth of bets against H's uncapped range. That's just a lot of money to spend on a weak J against an uncapped range. Would any of us do this in a cash game?
And now he's finally going to find the fold button against a polarized jam getting 2-1? If he hasn't found the fold button yet, I don't think he finds it on the river.
Fair point. We need someone capable of folding to make a triple barrel good. I'm taking it for granted that the reason we cbet is because we thought the villains can fold at some point, we're not just counting on hitting a 4 to make money here.
I'm no logician or debater so I had to look it up, but isn't it just as much a logical error to assume he is not a folder therefore the triple barrel is bad?
All in all, we don't know much about the guy. So far we've learned he won't fold the nuts to a check raise and has a loose preflop range. I do think a lot of live players, myself included would call twice here with KJ or QJ vs certain opponents knowing they won't go for 3 barrels except with the nuts making it a trivial river fold. This villain has already seen the hero bet twice then x/f a river so it's not inconceivable that he still has a folding range on the river after calling twice. If that's not true of this villain, which none of us can know at this point at least with the information we have, we shouldn't be c-betting or even opening this hand to begin with.
So I guess there's a x% chance that the villain is never folding no matter what the river is because we made a bad read to begin with, there's a y% chance that the villain has a big hand, and a z% chance he is folding his Jx. As long as z > x+y, then it's a good bluff. Plus, we get image points if we do get called.