Indeed they do contradict each other. But as I also included in my post, I think that the situations where Villain has 42o and is "bluffing" with the best hand are far out weighed but the times he actually has pure air because he is playing such a wide range and will be trying to win the pot more often with said (mostly air) range because he knows he can't win at showdown. I think we can agree that if you deal out two random cards and then run the board out, more often than not you will end up with less than one pair.

I also think that if Villain is bluffing with the best hand, it is almost always 2x and sometimes but rarely 3x. Again, I think his sizing OTR is polarizing or at least in his mind. I really doubt that he thinks he needs to bluff us when he's got 66 or 5x.

TBH, doing range analysis against players that are playing huge ranges is somewhat difficult... but if you wanted to take on such a challenge to analyze the true number of the situation, then I would probably take like 90% of all hands, remove the top 20%-25% or so because Villain limped in pre-flop, and then remove all hands in between a pair of 3's and 9x on the board by the river and see if we beat 30% of those hands.

In my personal opinion, such range analysis isn't truly necessary to determine whether or not our call will be profitable so long as the following assumptions are true:

-Villain's range contains a lot of air.
-Villain will bluff with air.
-Villain will not value bet all his pairs with this sizing, or rather, his sizing is polarizing to hands he thinks he needs to bluff with and 9x or better.
-We need need to be good 29.5% of the time to break even.
-It is inherently difficult to make a strong hand in NLHE.

Now, if you want to know exactly how profitable, then go ahead and run the numbers. Just remember that any numbers that you do come up with are still just approximations. There are just so many intangibles that could have been effecting Villains decision making that it makes it near impossible to come up with exact figures.

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying to either bet the flop, or raise the turn. Do I have that right?

Is DeathCabForTootie off the hook because he (I assume) spelled "post" incorrectly?

I like it because it is well thought out, sums up the hand nicely, and the math is correct.

I don't know where you are gathering that from. I like every decision that the OP made in this hand, and her reasons for doing so. I will add that a good % of the time against "standard" villains, I will cbet this flop. But based OP's observation that Villain is c/r happy, and my own assumption based on the description that he won't fold a better hand than ours to one bet, I like checking in this spot.

OTT, no I wouldn't raise. If I'm calling turn, it's with the assumption that I currently have the best hand and I would plan to call down on a lot of run outs. I don't want to shut out his bluffs or get blown off my hand by raising OTT. I would be looking to use my position to my advantage and asses both the river card and Villains action before coming to a final decision. Mostly checking behind if checked to, value betting A and J rivers, possibly raising for value if he bets.

No... he's off the hook because he agreed with IDWH in yesterday's thread!

DeathCabForTootie = idontworkhere

confirmed!

I'm off the hook because I offered IDWH gluten-free pizza!

Cbetting and not folding to the c/r is fine. Checking back with what is most likely the best A high hand is also fine to keep dominated hands in. As played the calldown on this board texture and w/ nut blocker looks good. Funny that he showed up with T4...you pretty much got max value from him.

Gluten-free pizza is disgusting. Your paleo diet puts me on tilt.

LOL I'm really not on paleo, IDWH was jazzed that I agreed with him and Sklansky so he offered to include me in his good graces by suggesting I have a pizza party with them.

That's actually a reason why the possibility of villain checking helps us. You said we always had to call 175 to win 250 on the last two rounds (if our plan is to call this villain down). But if villain sometimes checks back hands that beat us, then we're only calling 50 instead of 125 in a lot of the situations that we lose. Isn't that a good thing? That also increases the percentage of air in his range when we do call the river. In other words, we lose less in a lot of situations when villain is ahead, and win a higher percentage of the time when we do call 125.

This is maybe nitpicky but I think his range is weaker than that. I find it hard to believe this villain isn't raising AQ and hands like JJ PF.

I do also think people are being results oriented though. Just because villain turned up with T4 doesn't mean we should have expected that to be in his range before he turned over his hand.

nh wp. i think cbetting our good a-hi type hands here is actually pretty bad (if we intend to fold at any point in the hand- b/c and calldown is possibly better if you think he is really c/r + barreling an absurd amount), and i wouldnt be surprised if basically all hands between a-hi and bad 9x played best as a x/b rather than a bet. you could jam riv i guess, but i would estimate he would have to fold all 9x and possibly some small flushes before it becomes better than calling (probably not going to happen).

See the green

If his range is really wide, then we should call every river since most of the time he will have air which more than makes up for the times that we lose. Villian's mistake was not realizing that if we call with Ace high on the turn then we will likely call on the river considering he is probably bluffing too much in this spot. I think he should've over-bet the pot on the river since we have 0 hands that can call him in our range.

Something that also went unnoticed in this thread: he displayed a timing tell on the river by snap betting a big amount, which means he is polarized to trip 9's, flush, straight, or a bluff which makes it an even easier call.

Someone did mention the timing tell, and I agree. That played a little into my calling, which is why I mentioned it.

She was there, she had a read, and she took a high-variance line that worked out. Well-played.

I really like OP's thought process here. Usually I would cbet flop against typical opponents, but I think that OP is correct to check back flop against a habitual flop check-raiser if she doesn't want to cbet/fold. As played, calling down turn to re-evaluate river is very good. On river, OP's range looks very weak and capped towards Ace-high, so I think the very large river sizing seems very bluffy, and I agree with her read on the timing tell and the fact that she has the As blocker which makes it less likely that Villain hit his flush on the end. Even without taking her image into account, it seems like a pretty standard spot for an Ace-high hero-call. I think that this type of Villain will have an even higher bluff frequency against a 40-something lady.