I call this with no remorse, but it's not a snap-call and not a fist-pump. Occasionally this will be a boat of some sort, but more often it's like to be a weaker ace, or some ******ed bluff.

I keep finding that people say that 100-ish hand samples are "insignificant" and "meaningless". What crap. Yes, with those stats he COULD be a 25/10 and COULD be a 70/30, but if you treat your reads as "unless I know these are his stats for sure, they're meaningless", you're missing out on a ton of information. Of course the read isn't going to be as good as it would be after 1,000 hands, but you just go by the information you have, albeit with less confidence.

Here, this is going to be a weak player more than often enough to justify calling. Say we're even 50% sure it's a weak player. That range gives us much more than the required equity to call here.

Though, based on the stats and the way the villain has played this particular hand, I'd say it's much higher that he's weak.

I totally agree with Shaffer here. Although it's only 100 hands, it's all the information we can use atm. So why would this information be useless? 100 hands pointing into the direction of villain being a donk means it's much more probable that he IS a donk indeed than it's probable that he's not.

Btw, this problem has been dealt with by Bozzer some time ago:
Instareads: Bayes theorum and small sample sizes (Bozzer)

hilarious

I fold. In my experience this is always a boat. Donks with 46/25 type stats typically 3-bet very tight - I don't think even AJ is in his 3-betting range. I'd put him on QQ+ and AK preflop, and after the shove KK and AK.

$0.02 and I very well could be wrong here. But I wanted to touch on something.

Actually, I think its a good point. I know of situations where 2+2 logic says one thing almost universally, but I vary from it and do very well. I would get shouted down for my play, but no one here has tried it and doesn't know what to expect in terms of a range of outcomes.

OK, too many vagaries. Bunch of limpers to you in the BB with 87o. Flop comes 983 rainbow. SB checks, action is to you with 4 people left to act. c/f is the obvious line. I bet this a lot. If you get raised you're toast, if you get called you have a 5 or 6 out draw, and (hopefully) it might fold around. Definition of a semibluff. Most people would tell you that betting here is spew with so many people in the hand. Based on experience I think I have like 75% fold equity in this spot (no small bit of which comes from everyone following the party line of tight play in an unraised pot).

The reason I disagree with SABR42 about the OP is because I am a calling station. I call river bets all the freakin' time. I'm not good here 42% of the time, imo. Note that this is very much a "feel" decision. I have not pulled up PT and checked all players between 35/20 and 60/30 and determined their 3-bet range. I very well could be wrong. But I can tell you I'm not happy with this spot.

Believe it or not, I call and expect to see hands like QQ and TT a ton. I would be seriously amazed to get shown down anything we are behind of.

Overbets like this from bad players just don't make sense. He doesn't near pot flop with a monster and doesn't shove turn. I'm more thinking along psychological lines of a donkey seeing that ace and convincing himself it's less likely you have one and then just completely spewing away.

I call and am very surprised if he EVER has AK or KK

I call.

i call too

I snapcall (no fist pump) because he meant to bet 21 and not 210.

looks like a pretty easy call IMO

I gotta stop nitting up threads.

Results: I folded like a biotch

It's funny how the replies/opinions are all different in this thread, but imo b/c of villain's stats I would call this. I think it makes a difference if the villain is a 40/20 donk or a 16/8 thinking player.

this reminds me of a live hand i played

snap call he has A3o

red all the posts and i still insta fold.

Easy call

i call knowing his stats. 100 hands is plenty to spot a tard. 20 will do that. do you ever get raising hands five times in a row? i don't. they don't either. they're tards. they aren't on a 'rush.'

I'm sorry, but thinking a 45/25 player usually has KK+ when he min-3bets is a mistake. Plain and simple.
Wrong. 100 hands is enough to establish VP$IP and PFR percentages that are accurate enough to be useful.
I disagree, once again. It's possible that his true stats are 20/15, but I certainly wouldn't say they "easily" could be. It's possible, but it's not very probable.

I think this is a rather trivial call.

I wouldn't say it means nothing, but I think most people will overvalue its accuracy, it can be off a ton quite easily, just look through your session notes in PT and look at how it can be all over the place

I call, expecting to see something like A2o because people think that's the nuts. Doubly so with a guy with these stats.

Of course, I suck, so you should probably fold.

i insta call and expect to see 66

I thought the reason 100NL was so easy is because people constantly hand you buy-ins. How is this not exactly one of those cases?

Folding seems to be for ppl that wanna play 100NL for the rest of their lives.

for me, without reads, this a spot which shows why you have a roll. if you;re behind ul reload or just hit something, like an ace. that'l do it.