Quote:
Originally Posted by MrCrumbz
It's actually a trivially small spazz assumption. We realistically only lose to exactly KsQs - 1 measly hand combination. And since we only need 28% to call, we only need him to "spazz" with roughly .4 combos. Two-fifths of one single hand combination! You'd need insanely strong reads on a player, likely in very specific situations, to get below such a low combinatoric threshold.
An insanely loose villain who calls ATC pre, habitually donk bets, refuses to fold draws, and vastly overvalues weak made hands (even if mostly passive) is probably NOT that player type. When said villain donk/calls both the flop and turn and is now staring at a massive pot on the river with literally almost every single combo of busted flush draw thats possible as well as a bunch of medium-strong made hands he doesn't want to fold but doesn't know what to do with, and donk shoves with only ~half-pot left? I think we can pretty safely assign him at least 2/5 a combo of spazz with something that is not the nuts.
I appreciate your comments. You make a convincing case and I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said here. But many Villains would never river bluff 200bb and the made hand combos we beat are weirdly played except for kinda maybe AJ. Also, we can't completely discount that this guy could have the other KQ combos, and of course, weird lines can always be AA. For me, with the info given, we have a tough decision that was completely avoidable.
As I noted before, I hate the turn raise sizing. If OP chose the turn raise sizing because this was part of his plan and he's calling because a senseless jam was anticipated, well, wp, but we weren't given that read.
Bottom line, turn sizing should've been chosen with a river plan in mind, if OP did that, great.