Did I do it right?

villain looks pretty bad aggressive id call but not exactly delighted about it. I think top two pair is to strong to fold here though as villain can turn up with all sorts of worse hands.

Nh. Hard to lay this one down but I think it's good. People don't do this with busted dias or worse 2pair as often as we'd like to think.

That's such a sick spot.

I would probably call, just because the guy looks fishy due to stats and I've seen fish do stuff like this with missed FDs, random spazes, missed straight draws etc. By my quick maths you only need to be right about 1/3 times.

I don't think a fold is bad though he can easily have a set and probably has more value than bluffs

I think villain can have plenty of worse value hands as'well tbh.

With the board as connected as it is, should you not expect a reraise from sets, if not on the flop then at least the turn? Even A5 is getting a bit dicey here in flat calling the turn & 2 diamonds on the board. To me this feels more like a bluff with some sort of busted draw.

Fish like to make really dumb slow plays on dangerous boards.

eh what if he has like 43s for value? Can't ever fold river imo

If it was me, I would cry call the river because of the size of the pot.

It might be loosing a bit, but villain seems to be playing too many hands and you only lose to 9 combos.

If I end up winning, I'l quickly take a note on him and play as many pots with him as I can.

I would go bigger on the turn and river for straight value. My gut is with Rikk that people don't shove diamonds as much as you'd hope, and villains at 10nl can conceivably have all straights here.

I say this a lot but there's very likely some good info in that 75 hands that you could look into. I tend to be very cautious at first in not paying off here but villain doesn't have to have made many spewy or aggro plays before this becomes a call.

Gross.

A fish can have most of the A5/65 combos here, which really sucks. I don't think most fish are going to shove diamonds OTR. You're probably more likely to see some sort of expertly played AK / AA / weird two pair hand IMO.

I keep going back and forth on this. I think it's super borderline either way. We can call because we're highish in our range and because fish can show up with random garbage hands they think they're shoving for value... or we can overfold and restrict our calling range to sets and better and feel better about villain having some KQ combos in his range.

I probably fold and hate myself for it, but I guess that's a little better than calling and hating myself for it.

I think you might get a couple of these wrong, but overall this is a super strong line from villain. Bad fish slow play stuff, and generally don't suddenly start raising river with top pair good kicker. I do think it's close but I don't reckon we have the 35% ish we need. He could probably have all the combos that have us crushed.

Its a fold.Maybe you could go for c/c given that V dosnt have many weaker hands in this spot and Q is better for his range then it is for yours.

Think x/c misses wayy too much value vs this fish.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Check/calling river is going to be so bad against the vast majority of the field.

I agree vs this player its probably better to bet.Not sure in general

This is correct, hands like these turn up in these spots more than ya would think, there are also a few combos of KX and QX that have 2 pair, as well as queens on the FD that I think balance out his set and straights where this is a profitable call.

I don’t think we can fold here against this villain...

43s is two combos that might not even raise.

I made up a hand I beat...I call!

I'm trying to find the part where I said something mutually exclusive with your statement.
Villain is a fish. You can pretend like I said he can also have other 2 pair combos vpiping half the deck because he's a fish. Even a single extra spaz combo is probably enough to not want to fold.
Did I mention he's a fish?

Exactly. If opponent can conceivably be value betting a worse hand you should probably not fold. Poker Hands lesson #1
fwiw villain raising 43s would be what mmasherdog calls the ****** factor and warns not to underestimate it.

If his range is 43s for worse value and then KQ, 33, 44, A5, 56s. What percentage of the time are we going to be good? Are we getting good enough odds to call? I'm not saying that that's his range, I'm just saying that line of thinking is ridiculous.

Couldn't a bad aggressive player have Q4s Q3s and also a flopped 2 pair or turned 2 pair. And villain likely also has some river bluffs i would think as'well.It's also possible for villain to turn up with a strangely played AK or AA as'well. I have a hard time believing bad aggressive players don't jam worse or make mistakes.

I thought it was implied that I’m saying we’re beating 43s on top of all his straight up bluffs, of which I could name many potential ones.
I know you’re going to claim he never has a bluff in which case obviously slam dunk fold but I’m not as happy making that assumption as most people here seem to be. It’s just w/e, agree to disagree.

So here's the thing, he probably can't have all better value combos since some of them raise before river, but the same is true for bluffs so that effectively cancels out (since we don't know the frequencies for either bluff or value raise on flop/turn/river). I actually think it's worse for us because river aggression tends to be lower for bluffs in general.

I think villain can have sets, 56, A5 (suited and off are possible), and those all almost certainly shove river. We can probably chop with KQ occasionally as well. It's not obvious to me that the two possible combos of 43s that I suspect won't shove river very often actually make anything other than a very small difference here.

If you think that villains can have a bunch of bluffs here then that is a valid point of contention, but I don't know how I was supposed to get that from the post I responded to.

Good point. My general rule in a close spot is to give the fish action, less so when we don't have direct position though.