1k HU river spot bluff induced? (NLTRN)

[cwar]

[ QUOTE ]
Second the fact the guy said "abuse" after is like at least 90% proof that he had the nuts or near to it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Dont be results oriented, besides I think this only means the nuts like 85% of the time.
[ QUOTE ]
First, you def. have to bet this river as he did with 99, always. A lot of worse hands call here.

[/ QUOTE ]
I definitely agree that a lot of worse hands call here BUT the fact that he can bluff raise here and bluff if checked to make check calling much better IMO unless you think his bluff raise frequency is too high in which betting and planning on calling a push is better. My whole point has been that bet/folding is bad here in my opinion.

[nycballer]

u said my thoughts exactly, couldnt have put it better myself

i know its tough to have absolutes in poker but vs an opponent who is prone to big bluffs and isnt all that good, this spot is a bet and call everytime

[nycballer]

he will never bluff this river if checked to btw, neither will most because there's only a few hands that will fold to a river bet in my spot like AQ/AJ which those might look up as well.

[cwar]

[ QUOTE ]
One huge tell here is, bad players have a certain pattern they follow a lot: When they have a monster, they check flop, check turn then suddenly make a huge overbet on the river. Now this isn't the exact line the villain took here, since it was reraised preflop and you led the river, but I see often a bad player will check the flop, check the turn and then suddenly shove the river,

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think many 1k HU players are stupid enough to check that turn with two pair a set or strong top pair, that would be a horrible horrible check he cant be c/raising hes in position.

Villains range IMO should be a 5, bluff, possibly 64, 44. Im surprised this wasnt readily apparent to you nyc.

[cwar]

[ QUOTE ]
he will never bluff this river if checked to btw, neither will most because there's only a few hands that will fold to a river bet in my spot like AQ/AJ which those might look up as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can he be putting you on such a strong range and still be calling bets with 8s,7s,6s, you dont have much reason to bet an AQ/AJ type hand if you dont think he will bluff but will call all his paired hands. Hed be MUCH better off pushing all of these pairs as bluffs and hes LAG so Im more inclined to think hed take that line. Furthermore your hand looks so much like AQ/AJ why wouldnt he bluff at this very dangerous river card if checked rather than guranteed losing a showdown with whiffed cards thats not a terrible bluff and hes a bad LAG so Id assume hes more likely to make that bet.

[WutRUTryin2Hit]

[ QUOTE ]
u said my thoughts exactly, couldnt have put it better myself

i know its tough to have absolutes in poker but vs an opponent who is prone to big bluffs and isnt all that good, this spot is a bet and call everytime

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you might be right about the second thing but stricly because of "opponent who is prone to big bluffs and isn't all that good"... to me, an opponent has to be VERY prone to big bluffs in order to say call every single time. But there are definitely players out there who I would call everytime there. I think when you are playing those players though, you know it by this point in the match and it's not a tough tough call.

[WutRUTryin2Hit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Second the fact the guy said "abuse" after is like at least 90% proof that he had the nuts or near to it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Dont be results oriented, besides I think this only means the nuts like 85% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you are making a joke here, but it brings up an interesting point: The fact that the guy DID say "abused" afterwards, which usually means "crap, you folded", does give us some insight into his actual holdings, and results DO count somewhat: I mean if we saw 10 hands like this and the guy had a strong hand in 8 of them, that would be instructive.

Another note: This guy's range includes a lot of hands that are not as strong as a straight, but are like 2 pair+. He has no reason to put OP on a straight, so he has no reason to not value shove with a set, etc, here. Since he is very loose, his range to me is any 2 pair hand up to the nut straight, and I know personally I would value shove most of these here, especially because the OP's entire line did not reek of strength, it smelled like about what he had. I might shove AK here depending on my read of the opponent, because it's going to be good a majority of the time. I'm definitely not saying that in THIS case I would put the villain on AK, I'm just saying that villain's range is pretty wide here to value shove, and does not just include straights or sets. I don't think he had AK, but if for some reason he played AK this goofy, I think from his perspective, there would be no good reason not to raise the river here, given the hero's line in the hand.

[APXG]

This is a fold if thinking rationally. I'm certainly guilty of calling in spots like this when not focused / aware, and its just not +EV. The main reason people provide to themselves for calling here is so common and so wrong - "he bluffs a lot, I gotta call".

If you break apart the net income/loss of a river overbet, the bluffs may not even have positive equity.

It is the frequency of calls of the value shoves that drives the profit, and this frequency is of course provided for the most part by the frequency of bluffs. The point is this "necessity" to call river bets is a big myth. It does force you to make less value bets, and while a VB is very standard in the spot you posted, I would consider missing it if I was playing this player again or had prior info.

The chat comments are really funny, as they're a low level attempt at augmenting value for the river shoves without the price of bluffing -- aka free advertising.

Also, the decision is heavily dependent on a)the block of chips you have remaining if you call and lose and b)the usefulness of this block vs. the specific opponent. This usefulness depends on how the average edge you would estimate you have per hand. Blind structure and time remaining in the match factor into this as well obviously.

In other words, even if you knew that this call was in fact +EV, a lot of times it would be incorrect due to the opportunity for future EV. It still surprises me how many EV-crazed people on 2+2 don't seem to get this.

[cwar]

What do you think about the river line as played APXG? I personally feel (as I have described) that b/f is awful.

[APXG]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think about the river line as played APXG? I personally feel (as I have described) that b/f is awful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its standard - and fine here unless we have info that villain shoves much wider than a 5 on this board. Definitely not awful, maybe marginally incorrect.