Look. You play with a villain for the first time for one hour. In that hour, or 30 hands, he raises 12 times. He doesn't show. You cannot assume that his PFR is 40%, because your bayesian assumption is that 99.9% of players do not raise that frequently. In all likelihood, he's been getting a good run of cards.
In other words, instead of going with your observation of a small sample size you default to your assumptions about the player pool.
Now, if villain shows a couple of times and one time he's showing 89o from MP1 and the other K5s from UTG, then you do have a read that his PFR is very wide.
this might be the clearest example of over complicating the game I have ever seen.
You're playing 2/5. The only 45 villain should have is 4h5h. If hes a good player and he sees you betting too often on the flop he might float with that.
and if hes a fish yeah he might call you with air on the flop and draw on the turn but he would also shove with a bunch of other bs on the river too.
this might be the clearest example of over complicating the game I have ever seen.
You're playing 2/5. The only 45 villain should have is 4h5h. If hes a good player and he sees you betting too often on the flop he might float with that.
and if hes a fish yeah he might call you with air on the flop and draw on the turn but he would also shove with a bunch of other bs on the river too.
Agree with everything up to the last statement, where u make an unsubstantiated claim go prove your point. Some fish are loose passive, they will call u down with garbage but never ever bluff raise the river, and that’s the whole point of the thread.
Some fish are loose passive, they will call u down with garbage but never ever bluff raise the river, and that’s the whole point of the thread.
They could also have binked their Q2 on the river and think they can value shove. If they can show up with all 16 combos of 45 we know they are a bad player, and bad players sometimes over value hands.
I have no idea why I am taking this thread seriously.
