Quote:
Originally Posted by soah
the "amount of strength we've shown" argument is irrelevant given that it's impossible for him to not have at least a bluffcatcher and the board texture was far different on the street that we checked than the streets we bet and he's representing a nut hand
I mean it's like you're trying to argue that he thinks we can't have a set because of us checking behind on an unpaired four-straight board which obviously makes no sense at all
It's not that I'm trying to argue that he thinks we can't have a set, but that our range for betting that river is much wider than sets/boats. The only hands that we eliminate from our range on the turn are Jx hands, but I imagine we're value-betting the river wider than boats, right?
Since we aren't showing up with a boat here a ton, Villain can check-raise QJ or Jx hands for value (assuming we sometimes hero-call worse and sometimes he folds out a chop). Depending on Villain he may c/r bluff too just because we so rarely have a straight, but we will have a lot of hands that won't fold for a single bet on the river but may still b/f.
Anyway, the point I was making is: my range for betting the river is wide enough that bet/folding a full house when there are only 2 hands out there in Villain's likely range that beat me is just too exploitable for my tastes, regardless of whether or not it is regularly being exploited.
It's not like I'm just stubbornly making a crying call so as not to be exploitable, though -- from a pure value perspective I think we're ahead often enough for the call to be profitable in a vacuum.