The results oriented posts itt are pretty surprising. I still wouldn't fold river and I honestly wouldn't care if we had the third best hand in results.

Also, I don't understand how these 2 posts compute, but whatevs I guess (now I am being results oriented)

^ Like I've said 3+ times I thought it might be a bad play, even given the results, because the amount of money is extremely high compared to my normal stakes/amount.

Just cause V1 had AA this time doesn't mean my fold was good. Looking back I still don't know if I agree with fold or not. I lean towards fold though

I really only play 5/10 if the game is really good, and ive never played a 5k+ stack

OP, This - u have too much money on the table for your usual game.

if lot of different opinions I agree it is close. But then again 240bb shove by V2 and V1 showing some strength : having especially AK77 on board (where most A lead to a chop) , I might misread A7 somewhere but it s not stupid fold

It does make your fold good though. There is generally no such thing as balance even at the 5/10 level in most lineups in spots like this.

Playing a bit more with V1 (after this hand) I've come to realize that he's the consummate professional. He fastrolled the AA this hand as not to upset V2 (by making V2 show his spaz or w/e he had). Personally I've seen V2 basically "give" V1 5k+ since this hand occurred.

I've learned later that V1 and V2 have a much longer history than what I was aware of the table. What exactly that means? No clue. But they've played together for a decent amount of time.

I still have no clue what you're talking about.

I never implied or said V being nutted was a "unicorn". I specifically said I expect V1 to have AA fairly often here but almost never KK (because its infinitely harder to get value w/ top set because blockers, ldo)

However, I did say that his value range is thin enough (AA) to likely justify a flat, and then fold if V1 were to reshove

What I did say was that people saying "wow good fold" are being results oriented, just because V1 showed up this specific time with AA does not mean he can't also have an equal amount if not more combos of AK as played and some other Ax hands.

I made absolutely no comments about V2 after-the-fact

initial note for clarity: i misinterpreted the stack sizes in my previous post, and for some reason thought there was an additional 4k behind the potential 2400 that V1 could put in. shorter stack sizes are beneficial to us, however, since it simply reduces the amount V1 can leverage his polarity advantage, so i stand by the conclusion that we need to call at least once.

re: what to do facing a V1 all-in: i think my last post was unclear. im not suggesting we should try to get into some leveling war/ try to pick what we think hes thinking. i think we can say okay, idk what this guy is thinking and ill call x% of the time at the mdf, and ill look at my watch to randomize. but i also think that it just doesn't make that big of a difference, and its not going to push the needle on the initial call/fold decision. even when we make a mistake by calling/folding to the all-in too much/little, it doesnt change the ev of the initial decision enough to make us want to change our decision. ill also point out that the analysis i did above accounts for us losing ev to his shove by allowing him to bluff. i basically think that focusing on what to do vs the all-in is losing the forest for the trees a little bit. if you believe he is likely to do this with {AA,KK, some AK, some Ax}, its very likely you should call the first time basically no matter what you are going to do later. if you think he would take this line only with AA/KK, then you can fold. so imo the question is which range is more accurate, not whether he will/can bluff later.

as for results, you really cant draw too much info imo. i think it makes range 2 slightly more likely to be right than before, but i still think range 1 is better based on what we know. in reality we should weight the likelihood of these ranges, but that going to be just as much guesswork and not provide more accuracy. either way its good that OP is introspective enough to question his play even when he got shown AA.

this:
is also a pretty interesting topic. its a good reminder that ev is measured wrt a time frame, so if you are measuring outside of the time frame of a single hand, its possible for ev not to be zero-sum among the players in the hand. he could be correct to bluff "too much" and essentially ship us a portion of his image ev when we call "too much."

This is all good speculation if this was 3 regs, but there's a huge fish in the hand and if the villain is any good, he doesn't give a rat ass what we have.

What exactly are you referring to, because I believe I was fairly pointed in my remarks, leaving nothing to generalization, and specifically offering opinion on the information at hand.

The fact that my posts were all tailored to there being a drunk guy in the hand confuses me about your criticism.

not good fold. C/F river. V1 played good and made max like a champ. Calling odds on the riv are moot, V1 knows V2 can have AK, KK, and 7x and is never trying to steal the pot/a chop.

I don't think your process is sound. The only independent variable should be V2's fold to bet percentage F% - both rational players' strategies should be solvable around that; as players we can approximate F, as posters we should determine some heuristic for relationship between F and the 2 player equilibrium. If you wouldn't guess range composition of a player HU because he is good enough to be bluffing in a balanced manner, why guess it here when he can be good enough to chop bluff in a balanced manner?

I suppose (practically speaking) we should also consider V1's ratio of AA to KK for seeing the river as a variable dependent on V1's (practically unsolvable) turn strat, as our indifference equation with Ax will be substantially affected by this.

Obviously

Sorry, it was late, I get how you're trying to approach this and it's a fine start for figuring out what to do with 22 exactly. Now you need to attempt proof by contradiction: assume hypothetical V1 betting range that you found that makes calling 22 good, now compute hero's EV of calling* and bluffraising when V2 folds, as well as hero's EV of calling and bluffsqueezing when V2 calls (My guess is that F is probably such that * > 0 would destroy your argument)

Also check your denominator in the bracketed equation

who/what is this directed at? and how do you conduct such an analysis if you think the threshold question of V1's turn strat is practically unsolvable? V1 river range is a pretty important input if you want to find the 2 player equilibrium holding V2 constant.

gl doing that in game

Lol at this convo