NL200 6max: Wanna HeroFold or click call in such spots vs Fish?

    • NL200 6max: Wanna HeroFold or click call in such spots vs Fish?

      Poker Stars, $1/$2 No Limit Hold'em Cash, 6 Players
      Poker Tools Powered By Holdem Manager - The Ultimate Poker Software Suite.


      SB: $301.15 (150.6 bb)
      Hero (BB): $200 (100 bb)
      UTG: $302.90 (151.5 bb)
      MP: $83.55 (41.8 bb)
      CO: $200 (100 bb)
      BTN: $146.60 (73.3 bb)


      Preflop: Hero is BB with :4h :6h
      3 folds, BTN raises to $6, SB folds, Hero calls $4


      Flop: ($13) :jc :7c :8s (2 players)
      Hero checks, BTN checks


      Turn: ($13) :5s (2 players)
      Hero bets $24.79, BTN calls $24.79


      River: ($62.58) :qs (2 players)
      Hero bets $46.86, BTN raises to $115.81 and is all-in

      He is a pretty bad-aggro fish.
      But i tend to have the feel that even those might be in those sort of spots more polar and less spazzy than in others.
      River_Raises from fish on 3rd Colours vs a large bet seem in general oftentimes to be strong and more on the polarized side?
      Would you agree with this assumption?

      Not sure if I still need/want to call it off or make a HeroFold in such spots...what you guys do think?
      Might be very well the case that if my assumption on fish being here polar is correct, that for isntance 7s7x is a way better catcher and call off-hand than my hand...

      additional note:
      My River-sizeing seems a little bit too less consequent.
      although I think I do not want to anymore overbet_AI on a 3rd coloour (on a blank I would do that pretty often), I think vs a rec player in this spot 3/4 ps is less ev than just making it close to pot or potsize.
      Since they have soooo many combos in their range which will due to a high emotional attachment just call also a slight larger bet.
      I think that my size might have been in game a kind of mindset-mistake since I wanted maybe to give myself room to B/F vs a jam.
      But i doubt that this approach and thinking is a good one.
      Yeah, looking back i do think that I should have go close to pot here since it should be better and yeah, then I cant fold imo anymore vs a raise AI since with such a small SPR I have seen in my career fish just jamming thinner for value than they would do vs a 3/4 ps.
      Im not sure why that is the case, but might be a psychological reason where some fish just see that even when they call, the most of their stack is gone if they loose and then just push themselves looser (than vs a smaller betsize) with an "All or nothing"-mentality...

      anyways, still of course interested if we wanna fold or call off with the choosen sizeings in game...?
    • Hm I would check River in a first place. I mean I think his betting range on the River is going to be a lot wider than you expect and you described him as aggro bad fish. I think his betting range OTR is going to be wider than calling range and we avoif the spots we are now in a first place when betting. You are not really losing value bu checking and River being overcard to the board will decrease fish calling range quite a bit but he might bet some weak pairs "to fold you of Jx" again he is a bad fish. I expect him to bomb River with most weak pairs and 6x when I check to him. And I would probably x/c River yeah maybe it is weak but whatever. Also I think you still can asign fish range and his Xack Flop/Call your Turn overbet means he has something/is drawing so kinda on the River when you bet you undercut yourself imo.
    • checking river might be indeed explo-wise a cool idea vs a bad-aggro fish with busted club-draws.
      Just worrying a bit, since even some bad-aggro-fishes do bluff way too wide everywhere, but might still valuebet too less thinly...
      But agree - check vs this playertype should be an option in hindsight.
      Then maybe size-dependend X/R AI or only X/C.

      I dislike a lot this part of our reasonjng though:
      we avoif the spots we are now in a first place when betting.


      I think that there are some spots where this thinking is applicable, but more often it is a kind of "mindset-mistake" in game.
      Usually it is only what line has highest EV and EV(check) might be higher EV(Bet) or also vice versa, when aggro fish would chback too many madehands. - almost impossible to know and hence maybe I like to mix it up, if unsure what is really better <-> but again: I can see that river-check is a very good option there.


      Fwiw, i dont expect a fish to fold any Jx there in like 95%+ - more close to 100%.
      And then again:
      There are bad aggro fishes who turn there weak pairs into a bluff, but many maniacs still check back waek SDV back in those sort of spots - you assumption there is pretty big imo.
      I would not be so sure there like you (experienced-based) and would still advocate to at max mix it up, since a bad aggro fish can have without further reads several strats there, vs a check i.e. turning weak SDV into bluff and valuebetting thins <-> or not valuebetting thin and hardly turn anything into a bluff...

      @ this:
      . Also I think you still can asign fish range and his Xack Flop/Call your Turn overbet means he has something/is drawing so kinda on the River when you bet you undercut yourself imo.

      His range is really way wider than drawing-hands and do consist other parts of handtypes as well.