Your fold is marginal but his line is ****ing terrible. Jesus.

You 3x'd in a 5/5. His flat (not even from btn) is abysmal.

Also yes I would click back river with nut flush vs most villains bc where I play AK is never folding and AA even sigh calls most of the time to a min so it would be a very easy raise/fold.

So villain is a good LAG who has 3bet you multiple times but then decides to flat QQ and slow play a set on a wet board that smashes your range...wut.

It's still a bad fold.

Without reads, you are correct. If this was a larger raise this would be a super easy fold though vs a lot of villains who are only raising here with a boat.

LMAO @ villain's hand. That is just awful. Should have played it a lot different on every street and his river sizing is terribad.

Avarita is raising good players who triple barrel on a paired board with nut flush. Is anyone else?

Snap call IMO. I'm never folding here.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using 2+2 Forums

Don't make this personal. Avarita is one of the better posters here. Most of your advantage against your opponents doesn't come from folding full-houses when you're getting 3 1/2 to 1 odds.

Most people, at all stakes, call too much. If people are correctly folding full-houses to you in this spot what you should learn from that is:
1. you don't value bet thinly enough
2. you're way too passive
3. you don't bluff enough
4. you're trapping passive style minimizes your poker profit

And the only info you give is that you and villain are a LAG! So of course villain has a wide raising range on the river because a LAG's betting range is wider than just a boat

A

Also do you even consider bluffs op? Maybe he missed fd or jt and is clicking buttons hoping (correctly) that you are a nit and will fold ak aa etc. just thoughts a good "lag" could have

Uh yeah? Especially since you described yourself as a lag.

Aside from the fact lots of people have said they would raise with the nut flush if they were V, including me, you haven't addressed at all the many people who have stated that for V to play QQ, KK or KQ this way is horrible and so unlikely.

You'd expect a 3bet from QQ and KK pre flop and you'd expect to get raised on either the flop or turn if V had these hands too with the flush draws out there.

He played it horribly.

Based on his line, you seriously put him on KK, QQ or KQ??? I think it would help us all if you explained your reasoning

Sure, Hero's reasoning:

Villain is a very good player who is either a pro or semi pro. Villain knows that hero is himself a pro. When Hero triple barrels this river, he is really only representing a fairly small range:
Could be repping AK -- A hand that is not going to call a raise.
Could be repping KQ -- A hand that cannot be bluffed
Could be repping 22/66 -- A hand that is very unlikely to be bluffed
Could be repping nut flush draw (A hand that if V has, V knows Hero doesn't have)
Could be a bluff -- will not call a raise.

So, this being the case, when a good, thinking Villain raises, he should be doing it almost exclusively for value. When we consider that V has raised a tiny amount, it seems we have a bet-sizing tell that is skewed toward value, not bluffs.



Also, from villain's perspective as to why he'd play hand like this: Responses seem to clearly be the answer. Almost everyone wants to snap this off because they cannot read the hand, even though a thinking villain is rarely bluffing here and should not be value-raising flushes.

Your analysis makes no sense. First of all, you've stated that you can be triple barrel bluffing in this spot, so villain can occasionally be rebluffing. Second of all, villain played this hand like an autistic grapefruit because he would have stacked you if he raised flop or turn.

He 3bets QQ pre sometimes and raises turn with KQ (since blinds folded OTF) a decent amount of the time too.

He could also bluff with Ahx or sometimes value raise AhXh (as he should since we should sometimes be calling with worse flushes)

The main reason we call is because we only need to be right less than 20% of the time. Folding is out of the question

There is some truth to this, but I think the times that JT is rebluffing a AJ of diamonds is pretty limited. I expect these sort of rebluffs / semi-bluffs to happen earlier in the hand, not on the river where Hero should be pretty polarized.


True in this case, but results oriented.

Rebluffing the river makes sense because it's a great card for his range. And he can also get folds from AK (maybe you can also have KJs).

Nothing results oriented about raising a set on a wet board.

Ever heard of rebluffing? Check out some of SABR's HHs for examples.

Villain played this hand soooooo badly to not get your stack. As you, I'm calling river 100% of the time.

Again, when it is set over set, sure it is bad for him to not get my stack. But he is playing his set against my range of hands, which includes AA, AK, AQ, bluffs, various draws, and 22. There are times where maximizing your value against someone's range means you lose value against the periphery of their range. Set over set is an example, IMO. As it turns out, he might not even be losing much value here, because almost everyone wants this to be a snap call. It just so happens that I thought his river raising range was precisely KQ or QQ and happened to make a lay down.

Are you leveling? You seriously think villain played this hand optimally? You must be joking.

Just bc he had QQ does not mean you made a good lay down. Again I don't have a position...I construct a reasonable range and go from there. That's up to you not a bunch of guessers on a forum.

Also as hero I'd be checking all of my KQ/KK/QQ otr.

I agree with this, but for the reason I've already made: Villain should be V-Betting his made flushes on the river, but he should not be V-Raising.

I think that because the hand was 4-handed, Flop should be a raise. I'm okay with flatting both preflop and the turn. Also think I raise a little more on the river. My point, however, is that Villain's play has almost everyone here confused and planning to call river raises, so I don't think it is terrible at all. If he was playing against Joe-Donkey at the local casino, then it is terrible, but against a good player who is putting together hand ranges, I think there is merit to it.

You think villain's line is so great because he wins the minimum boat over boat?

We're saying call because of the strength of our hand, not because villain took a great line. No one is saying call with a bluff catcher here.

Just awful all around.

this times 10