[aejones]

efficacy, obviously what you're saying makes perfect sense.

however, you should know that this type of thinking is ridiculously exploitable. that is, all straate has to say is that "he will never donk into me with the nuts" (irrelevant if it's true or not). so now straate decides he's got EXACTLY what he's got, so he raises. he can raise equally because he's got the best hand, or becuase he knows op doesn't have the nuts, do you see? judging from this information, it would make this situation WAY WAY WAY too easy for straate to bluff (not to mention he's fairly aggressive). since it's too exploitable to let him bluff here AND you've induced it becuase it was your PLAN (which leads me to say that you should, well, have a better plan in the first place) you need to call to follow through on him doing what you wanted him to do.

however, if you REALLY just read the river bet size as "he always bets big as a bluff, and thsi EXACT size for value, i know becuase I've played thousands of hands with him, etc etc" THEN you can fold. as i said i thin kthe riv is prob for value based on size, BUT straate is a winning player assumedly and he's smart enough to switch up bet sizing on the river for value and for a bluff, therefore in theory you shoudl not be able to tell if he's bluffing or betting for value, i know i sure as hell don't give out info on that i'm consistent accross the board about bluffs and v bets on the end. so basically, folding on the river is inconsistent with the rest of the hand. ya dig?