vs any fullstack i fold
hes prob not a reg so flip a coin

Id probably snap call. With no raise on the turn its hard to put him on anything big. He can easily have aj+ and be willing to play postflop expecting you to fold pre if he 3 bets you.

Why would he ever raise anything that beats our hand OTT?

fold pre, and snap fold the river were ahead of 87, and behind so much 33,77,88,A7,A8

Why wouldn't he ever raise anything that beats our hand OTT? Just because you think logically doesn't mean an unknown player does.

Villain is unknown. I wouldn't assume they're completely awful and stack off here just because some players are maniacs.

What I'm saying that completely discounting that he wouldn't raise here OTT with a set isn't a good assumption. Just because you're good enough to know that you shouldn't be raising OTT with a set doesn't mean someone else can recognize that, especially in real time.

I'm not disputing that he has us beat, and I agree that we should be folding. But again, you can think about the hand correctly, but you shouldn't just assume your villain thinks about poker the way you do. I know for a fact that if I had a set, I would be raising the turn some of time.

And honestly, how many micro players actually think perfectly when they have 30 seconds on a decision?

I'm not assuming he plays the way I do. I'm assuming he plays somewhat competently until I have some hands on him that make me think otherwise.

So what you mean is that somewhat competently means that he will NEVER raise the turn with something that beats us? If he ever raises the turn with a set, then he's incompetent?

That's the only point I'm making.

Just my opinion that somewhat competent players don't flat on the turn with sets as often as they raise with them.

I'm saying that because raising the turn would be bad, and I have no reason to think that he's bad, or has this leak, the fact he didn't raise the turn does absolutely nothing to discount better hands from his range.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I have to say that flatting the turn is more being good than being not bad. And I never said that he can't have sets as played.

What you said was:

Which is what I'm disputing. Because he doesn't ever have to raise the turn with anything big. The fact he doesn't raise the turn tells us nothing. The fact he calls two streets and shoves over a 3-barrel...that tells us a fair amount and, I think, adds up to a big hand given that there's no draws on the flop.

You misread very terribly. What we're arguing about is Nirwanda's response, "Why would he EVER raise anything that beats us OTT?"

What I said in response, is "Why wouldn't he EVER raise anything that beats us OTT?" Let me just paraphrase this: He doesn't flat 100% of his sets on the turn. You might think you flat here 100% in practice, but reality is, you wouldn't either. Remember, I'm not saying that he doesn't have sets on the river. Because he CAN obviously call the turn with the set. You're putting words in my mouth.

Nope, I'm not putting words in your mouth. And the point I believe Nirwanda is making is that there is no good reason for him to raise the turn with hands better than ours and since there's no good reason for him to do that, your point is a bad one.

Him not raising the turn does not mean it's "hard to put him on anything big" because if he's good he never raises the turn.

And fwiw I'm not good, but I never raise a set on the turn.

...
Okay buddy, you're not putting words in my mouth, but your inserting quotes like "hard to put him on anything big" and saying that's what I'm saying.


This is the last time I'm going to try to explain to your brick head. The correct play is to flat the turn. We can agree on that, right? That's what I said from the beginning.

Does it prevent someone who is semicompetent, or even completely competent to raise the turn? No. You don't always do the profit-maximizing move do you? If you did, you'd be making alot more money wouldn't you?

Does it prevent him from having a set on the river? No. Again, I didn't even imply that it did, you just read something in between the lines that wasn't there.

Well I'm inserting that quote because it's not hard to put him on anything big which is kind of the most important thing in this spot.

an unknown

Raises the river for value with worse? Virtually never.
Bluff raises the river? Virtually never.

Raises the river for value with strangely played 2pairs, sets and random runner runners? Possibly.

Fold and stop over-analyzing vs an unknown.

Fold ainec

Do you think its more likely a slow play, or more likely a bluff jam river from unknown? Its pretty obvious.

Not sure why you're asking me that. Said it was a fold since the beginning.

^ Thank you all guys. Fold it is then!

You are definitely bluffcatching on the river.
I'd just give villain credit for a hand and muck it this time. Make a note that he did this.

Eh, it's kind of close. I'd say it's more common for people to slow play a big hand on this board than it is for them to turn a made hand into a bluff on the river. Even then, what hands would he do this with? 8x, 99, TT?