[ILOVEPOKER929]

"ILP, i disagree on so many counts.
Quote:Here's an ad hoc list I have concocted to help evaluate the merits to this value/bluff river raise:
1) Does it appear that you picked your victim wisely? Yes, Heisen is a tag.
disagree. heisen is very showdown bound. it's unlikely that he folds less than an optimal amount."

All I am implying here is that Heisen passed the first screening test of being a tag/player trying to paly well.


" Quote:2) Is the river card unlikely to help your opponent? Yes.
disagree. heisen could have picked up a flush draw."

Just becuz Heisen could have a flush draw doesnt mean the river card is likely to have helped him. A flush draw in Heisen's range should certainly be discounted since Im sure he doesnt always C/R the turn with a FD in a spot where there is no apparent FE.


"if he had tptk why didn't he just 3-bet the flop?"

Waiting til the turn with TP strong kicker or better is a fine play in this spot, so is just 3betting the flop. Im sure Heisen mixes up his play here vs another tag-like player.


"Quote:4) Is the river card scary enough to get your opponent to possibly fold?
the question is not whether he can fold but whether he can fold a better hand."

Yes, that was implied when I said fold. I didnt know I needed to be clearer on this point.


" Quote:6) Is Heisen capable of bet/folding or making expert laydowns? I have never played with Heisen so Im not sure.
b/f'ing this river wouldn't be an expert laydown, but rather a very exploitable play. heis (and other good players) tries very hard to avoid being exploitable."

I dont want to get into a semantic's battle about what "expert" means. The point is, if you see a player who can make an "big" laydown in a certain spot then there's a good chance they are a thinking player and against such a thinking player it can be possible to use their thoughts against them.

Also your idea of exploitable is flawed. Remember exploitable plays are potentially the most profitable plays of all. Your goal should be to find as many players/spot where you can be as exploitable as possible and get away with it. If you think there is a natural dichotomy between "exploitable" and "expert" you are dead wrong. In other words, If you think these two terms are mutually exclusive you are dead wrong. So when you say "b/f'ing this river wouldn't be an expert laydown, but rather a very exploitable play" you really dont know what youre talking about.


" Quote:8) Do you already have a calling hand on the river? Yes, you beat JTs/QJs/ and you tie KJ. Thats enough to call. having a calling hand should make you less inclined to raise, not more."

Again this statement is dead wrong. The fact that we already have to commit one bet on the river means we are now getting much better odds on a bluff raise. If we didnt have a calling hand on the river our bluff/raise odds would be cut in half.


" Quote:Also it is worth noting that we need Heisen to fold a better hand more than 1/12 times to make raising the river better than calling.
yes. so if our equity is indeed 31%, he should fold 31%+1/12=39% of his hands. this would be a very exploitable strategy."

I dont care if bet/folding the river for Heisen is exploitable nor should you. All I care about is whether he will fold a better hand or the same hand often enough combined with those times he calls our river raise with a lesser hand to make raising the river better than calling.


"in general, it is game-theoretically suboptimal to raise with calling hands."

Another statement that is dead wrong. Were not talking "In general" here. We're talking about a very specific situation. No platitude is going to help us here. If your statement is implying that raising the river with a calling hand has no place in game theory or poker then once again you dont know what youre talking about.

The essential point is this, there is a time to call with a calling hand and there is a time to raise with a calling hand. I understand how rare it is when the latter play comes up, but it still comes up and why not be prepared for it?


"whenever you are considering such a big deviation from optimal strategy, you better make sure your opponent is exploitable."

This isnt about deviating from optimal strategy this about making the play that will make us the most money in the long run. Do you understand how ridiculous your statement can sound?: If the right strategy is to deviate from the optimal strategy then the right strategy is the optimal strategy and therefor we're not deviating to begin with. I prefer to avoid this logical absurdity and approach the game this way: There are money plays and non-money plays. Will raising the river make us more money than calling the river in this spot? And then I try to answer this question.

In this case the answer is, I dont know. I dont know Heisen's game enough to accurately draw a conclusion or how he views OP. All I have really said is I love the thought process of the OP so far and that this hand contains many of the ingredients neccessary to make a value/bluff raise play more profitable than calling. Some key ingredients are sill missing becuz I dont know Heisen's game that well nor how he views OP. Im not gonna rule out the possiblity that the OP has enough information on these missing variables to make value/bluff raising the river the money play.

Even if Heisen comes in this thread and honestly says that raising the river with this hand in this spot is not a good play vs him, this hand should still be treated as a case study for anyone interested in adding or perfecting the value/bluff river raise play in their game.