Whiff river - all three options on the table?

I don't think he is bluffing, though he might have more heart draws than most. Hard to know what an erratic player is up to, but it is kind of an unusual spot for him to bluff. I think he is just betting a medium strength hand. This might be a good spot to run a bluff on some villains, but it sounds like this guy would call hands like KT and maybe even any K or stuff like QT or AQ.

Not the guy I want to be bluffing on a bad river to rep with a bad hand to bluff.

So tempting to look him up considering he didn't raise somewhere -- and he seems to like to raise with any piece. However, he probably shows up with 22 or something ridiculous that still beats us.

I just overlimp as I think we're probably a little too early to attempt to isolate V1.

I'm fine with a flop cbet 3ways with all our equity and scare cards that we're supposed to have.

I'm fine with giving up on the turn and just trying to bink against someone who is sticky / no concept of hand value.

And I just fold the river. A raise makes no sense (we're repping 7x?) and it's against a sticky guy who has no concept anyways. Meanwhile he can probably mostly beat A high (noting that even some HHs hands where he got in lottsa $$$ he still had decent hands / bunch of equity).

GcluelessNLnoobG

bet the turn, big.

as played fold river. his hand is face up as top pair but your range is capped so just give up.

Well played...assuming you folded the river, since a river raise represents very little. Calling is silly, since you're the one on the busted draw, and he's not bluffing with a worse hand.

Bet bigger on flop - board smashes your range.

As played river is a clear fold.

I think you may want to fire turn with high frequency and give up river if called. PSB or more.

He did describe Villain as "sticky."

I mean the river bet sizing does suggest there's some fold equity but we have the Ah here so thats a ton of hands villain cant have that we want them to have and be folding to a raise here.

Some Tx or other weird bullshit isnt enough imo and since we checked turn i doubt this villain finds the proper narrative where they're capable of realizing a set of value hands hero could have that raise this river, thus taking away more of our fold equity.

---

if you meant this is as why turn is a check I see more merit sure but i'd prefer our inflection point to be the turn in this line rather than suggesting this river has any merit to any option other than folding. (not saying you're suggesting as much, I mean it as strat response for OP)

Not only do I think the turn is a check, but I don't agree with betting more on the flop, since a sticky Villain who called this flop for $30 will likely call for more. Also, since it was 3-handed on the flop, I don't think it makes sense to bet larger unless we can get both to fold before the river, since we don't want to be matching bets HU when we're on the draw.

I'd c-bet 1/3 pot on flop and over-bet the turn when he flat calls.

V's line and river bet sizing sort of screams weak value. If we think he's capable of folding, I think I might raise to $250 here.

Yeah, I would bomb the turn against this guy and then give up river if he calls. Check back with showdown value hands that can bluff catch his weird stab OR with zero-equity give ups.

The problem with calling the river is you still lose to spew bluffs like 22 with a heart. And I agree with the consensus above that raising doesn't make very much sense.

i dont really see call as a viable option and i'm not sure raising the river is going to be particularly believable, you also got pretty bad cards for it. if u want to bluff id just bet the turn and

It feels like your reasoning used here is ad hoc. It’s only bad that villain is sticky and would call more if we view it from temporal place that KNOWS we brick on river.

We are fine if villain calls more, we have NFD + perceived range connects with this board.

why would we just be down betting/checking it down til we hit a flush and not attempting to build pot while we have strong equity and the most fold equity?

We don’t down bet when the board is good for our range AND we have a strong equity draw just cuz villain is likely to call.

Result:

It sounds like we probably disagree on how much fold equity we have on this board.

I want to say maybe it’s more a difference of our POV on the intent of betting and also our bet sizing?

In other words: betting larger here when villain calls builds a decent pot and we are drawing to a nutted hand that can scoop.

But betting larger on flop and then betting AGAIN on turn, I am suggesting we actually want a fold here and scoop whats in the pot. However if he does call turn, we aren’t in heaps of trouble at all: we have one card to come that can still deliver us a clear nutted hand and some % our A outs are clean as well.

I don’t think villain is over folding btw - if that were the case, I’d prefer sizing our bets smaller. It’s precisely because villain is sticky that I want to bet more to write narrative for villain that we have a strong hand here and we hit it hard.

By the river though I am absolutely done with stuffing chips into this pot.

GTO might check turn more with the A heart draw because the GTO solver is assumes the opposition strategy is solid and that solid opponent will actually FOLD some weaker FDs so betting actually nets less value from a range vs range perspective - so checking keeps those dominated FDs in their range vs giving them an opportunity to get away from them. Also worth noting the composition of our villain's range is drastically different form the GTO solver's range assumptions.

However, our villain will NOT fold those flush draws. So we bet our draw heavier precisely because it becomes a value bet when villain shows up with XhXh here*

In this specific hand though given villains description, I do think giving up and checking river is best since it’s more likely villain won’t fold much of anything in their range at this point after we've bet flop and turn which leaves a rather polarized range of value hands such as the KT in the results OR some chunk of missed draws, which we scoop against - so betting here is not a net positive value proposition. If needed I can flesh this out some more with specific hands that might comprise villains likely range but I do think its quite obvious - small pocket pairs, 3rd pair+card/blocker whatever type **** even a sticky recreational player or live low limit reg would probably release but clearly some XhXh chase the dragon to the river and given gen pop tendencies, they're not putting 100% of those unpaired whiffs into a 100% bluffing the river every time bucket.

couple points on GTO/GTO analysis vs our own approach:
*I think its also important to note that when we are conducting an analysis of these spots, a solver is capable of carrying the entirety of the range and via brute force trials how each piece of these ranges match up across all turns/rivers etc whereas for humans, I tend to think of it like a schroedinger's cat situation. I can explain the analogy further but dont want to burden this response with those details.

But summarily: we have to look at thru both a macro lens, micro lens, and then a specific one which takes into account your exact hole cards since its reality and not a simulation in this snapshot moment.

happy to speak more on this from a theoretical standpoint if anyone wants to go back and forth on the merits or lack thereof with the above ideas as well *party hat emoji*

I also feel compelled to make a quick point about "sticky" as a descriptor.

I dont think sticky is strictly a binary application of tendency. There is bit more of a spectrum of stickiness in other words.

When I see sticky, my assumption of intent tends to pull from context where along that scale or to what extend I should apply meaning/understanding.

As far as the more nuance differentials, this is a bit more laborious to write out but unless that sticky is then qualified with some stronger support whether its a short hand history included or other terms like "very loose" "maniac" "showdown monkey" etc, I am not going to conclude that "sticky" means never folds ever except in very obvious cases (5 high on a AAAAT board) etc

oof yeah - i think you're assessment of "tons of crap in range" still is correct, you just ran into the time some piece of his range connected hard with the board.

Its exactly this assessment that leads me to want to apply more pressure on flop and turn though vs villains like this - its almost like theres definitely player archetypes that are perfect candidates or 3barrel bluffs almost with impunity, this player type however is the kind I want to pressure more on flop and turn (jsut a single street) but and going to give up a street somewhere. Problem with slowing down on turn and then trying to ramp up again on river is bad players tend to act irrationally so its harder to lay down some hurt with confidence they'll fold enough except on very specific river cards that unequivocally favor you/your range say. These types have olympic level mental gymnast abilities to talk themselves into finding calls for nonlinear logical reasons so I prefer pressure on earlier streets and then give up on most rivers and hope for the best.

but none of the above is said with absolutes. its not a NEVER do 'x' action on river vs opponent but my frequency gets pushed very close to those extremes of an always/never in these kinds of spots.

The part that really tipped me towards ez fold is the half pot river bet. Given general population and description, villain seems more likely to either bet way too small with a bluff (stupid 1/10th pot ****) OR in most cases i'd imagine, bet much larger. Its the half pot sizing and the fact that you didnt mention ANYTHING on timing of the bet that makes it feel too much like a "please call, i hope you dont raise but i'll probably talk myself into calling a raise anyway" scenario.