WSOP $1K Online, TPGK

Tough spot - I would think when we get to this river villains range is Ax you beat, AT, TT, 66, QJ with spades, KJ/KQ with spades and really nothing else. Your range is uncapped - I do think your smallish river bet does make this harder as he could feel you have what you have and he has to shove or fold. Honestly maybe a better river bet is like 5-6bb - he might flick it in with worse Ax and if he raises I think there's a higher frequency he's bluffing so makes the bet/call easier. I think I would call here given they're a tourny grinder, your bet was smallish, they jammed instead of raising, and there's a good chance you would hear from them with TT/66 on the turn like you mentioned. I don't like your sizing though.

Because Villain is in position I don't think we can rule out TT/66/AT/A6 type hands. Especially because there is no flush draw on the flop. Sometimes they will raise on the flop or turn but we can have AA/TT especially because we are UTG. Also, a 3x turn raise would be over 30% effective stack so they may have been choosing to wait to jam on the river if we bet again.

On a flop like this I prefer a 4.4bb flop bet but this is ok.

Turn sizing is OK as it is > half pot. Sometimes I check here HU to make it seem like I have KK/QQ/JJ/99/88 type hands. Especially because we are OOP.

On the river I probably check and then call (unless they jam for 2x pot at which point its a very tough spot).

As played very tough spot. I doubt Villain would do this with Ax that we beat. There are basically 9 flop gutshot drawing hands that I think would call the turn KQs/KJs/QJs/98s/97s/87s(all 4). It's basically a pot size jam so Villain needs to be bluffing more than 33% of the time for this to be a call. Villain can have AK/TT/66/A5s/AT/65s (23 combos) which at least some of the time would have raised on the flop or turn. I do think it is an underbluff spot because of the A on the flop.

Typically with AK/AQ/AJ type hands where we flop an A I don't barrel all 3 streets but if I do I will be bet/folding on the river.

Don't really see this ever being a worse hand, and there aren't many bluffs that make sense.

I also don't see why you "feel like I would have heard from 66/TT on the turn." You raised preflop from UTG, bet into two players, and bet the turn again. You are representing a strong hand, so there's no reason for him to give you a chance to get away from it sooner.

Tough spot. I do think your opponent can have all the strong hands after this line. Against most opponents I would fold. However, given your description the opponent sounds like they could be the type who is capable of turning a weak suited ace into a bluff or something, and it's possible you induced a bluff with the small river sizing.

On the flop I'm thinking AQ is borderline as to whether it's good enough to go for three streets of value. Given the T on the board I would lean towards it not quite being strong enough. My thinking is that AJo and ATo call preflop on the button whereas worse aces only call if they're suited. So one of the main offsuit aces we would normally be targeting for value on an ace high board already out flopped us.

I probably check flop then go for two big bets on turn and river if the flop checks through. I might also bet flop then check turn or possibly bet flop and turn then check river. Basically I'm probably setting up a line where I go for two streets of value.

As played up to the river I think I would prefer that you either check call or go for a bigger 1/2-2/3 size bet. I feel like you'll get a more honest response when you bet bigger and can more comfortably raise-fold as he's less likely to bluff compared to when you use the smaller sizing.

As played including the small river bet I don't know. It's a tough spot but I probably fold and just tilt my cap to my opponent if they found a bluff.

I am feeling a little out of practice with this stack depth. Lately I am jumping in tournaments with 20 - 10BBs. So it usually a question of whether to shove the river or not.

I kept thinking that I am getting value from worse Ax, but maybe this should be a check call. Because if he does have AJ he might bet it and A9 or worse probably won't call a river bet. AT is beating me. I got a reveal but will see if there are any other comments.

I dig your line

Guys would be really well justified to think you fold a ton. And why not, that's pretty well supported by data.

I'd fold sometimes too.

I think the solution is somewhere between a coin flip and a pure call.

I think flip a coin. I'd assume most people don't bluff enough--but many certainly are, and it's not crazy at all to sometimes run into guys who are pulling an overbluff exploit.

Taking into account this post and responding to the OP...

While you might be over folding if you fold this hand, you're somewhat protected by the fact that you took a line of bet, bet, bet. If your opponent has to make multiple (possibly -EV) calls just to get to a "profitable" bluff spot on the river then it's not like they can repeatedly exploit you in that spot. I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well, but it's much more important to remain unexploitable in common flop and turn spots.

In practice the one lesson I would take from this hand is to watch your sizing tells against good players. On the river I'm assuming that you are probably almost always betting bigger with your absolute strongest hands, and that could be exploitable.

I think you are right about them making -EV calls to get to a profitable bluffing spot. So I ended up tank folding and I was shown the 7 of spades. So I guess, it was As 7s. It's possible also 8s 7s. I think the flop call makes sense and I guess the turn call with the nut flush draw is reasonable. I think my bet size might have been a tell. But I just didn't think I would get a bigger bet to be called with a weaker Ace. I guess on balance, I will just have to be aware of this player's tendencies.

he has many standard calls with the 7s that he sometimes turns into bluffs

{ A7ss, 67ss, 78ss, ...}

I don't think he can call too much hoping for profitable bluffing spots that may arise exloitatively beyond baseline.

Here hero creates an exploitative situation for villain to abuse by his river sizing (and for hero to potentially reabuse as said eggs. but that would require an exact plan beforehand on how to react, and belief in villain going for bluffy exploitative aggression too).

but villain can't expect hero to create that spot beforehand. if he tries to call to bluff too much, he may run himself into counterexploitation:

for example, if hero plays his aces on river by always checking them, and villain ends up with a bunch missed draws that he then fires to be snapped off. it's not as easy as it may seem.

In baseline he sometimes bluffs hero's third riverbarrel with hands that block fullhouses, so Ax or 6x, and more seldom missed straight and flushdraws. generally the frequency is pretty low.

By your remarks on population dynamics I understand it that way (assuming some larger normalish riverbet by hero):

villains' raises will be underbluffed, thus heros will overfold

knowing this, one can profitably exploit this population dynamic himself as villain: bluffraise more on river, and heros will overfold

some villains may be exploiting this population dynamic - especially after such a smallish riverbet. So if we believe villain may be doing it, we can counterexploit by overcalling.

He doesn't need to exploitatively overcall anything on the turn in order to really own you here on the river.

But he certainly can.

Literally anything that's losing to AQ that would raise the river is a "bluff". He'll have plenty of that no matter what he does on the turn.

Now, I could be overestimating the foresight of most players--for example, I would never fold a ten on the turn; I'd know I could do this on the river way more than I should be allowed to.

I know this because I have decently credible data on the spot; but it's credible based on a confidence level that's still very risky and volatile gambling. But I would still take the spot as often as possible, fuck it.

I might end up raising this river like half the time at this point, based on what I've seen. Forums are still the nuts for datamining, you just have to know what to look for and how to incorporate it.

But sure--people are stupid, and they're pussies, and even when they have a damn good idea that someone is either spread open for abuse or being abused themselves--they may not adapt. Their confidence level for being fully credible in a read is too high: they don't gamble enough. They are not "comfortable" enough with it. They are exploitable "unconfortable" with gambling.

That's why I'd end up folding myself something like 25-50% of the time. And I'm damn sure I'm exploitable. And I'm not so sure I'm OK with that at this point.

I mean the secret's out--people are afraid of calling and losing to a trap more than they are of folding and losing to a bluff. People will pull wool over their eyes about how often people can bluff here. It's gonna be pretty often...

It's OK to admit it. Just about everyone hates losing more than they enjoy winning. It's unrealistic to deny that.

There are entire industries in finance in which billionaires pay other billionaires to take risks off their hands (reinsurance, hedging, etc). If even billionaires, whose entire lives are ostensibly about taking risk, are actually pussies when push comes to shove who'll give up money just to reduce the risks they're paying to take--then the same can happen to us.

And it shows. OOP folds too often here. It's a valid and differentiated and potentially very sick and profitable but volatile and risky thing to try and exploit--including all the way from the turn. That's what a sicko does, he thinks many moves ahead. And he doesn't give a shit about "comfort" or "honesty" (whatever that means...)

The moment your feelings and emotions become part of your calculus--you are exploitable.

You seem triggered by the language I used. Lol. All I meant is that if we bet bigger on the river we will get an "honest" response (meaning they're unlikely to bluff) and can "comfortably" fold because almost no one in our opponent's shoes is going to bluff there. When we make a small bet on the river we're left guessing as to how often they would bluff.

My comment was not suggesting you should play scared by taking "comfortable" lines. It's just generally better in poker to take lines that disguise the strength of our hand so our opponent is left guessing rather than taking lines where our hand is face up and we're the one left guessing.

Leverage their fear against them rather than letting them leverage your fear against you. That might not be mathematically precise but in practice it's a great way to increase your win rate. The player with the polarized range taking aggressive actions is in an advantageous position and we want to maximize these times.

Anyway, in my tournament today I was inspired by this thread. It got me thinking about the fact that almost everyone is over folding in these spots when they're raised on the river. Bluffs should be printing. So when I encountered a similar spot and my opponent showed weakness on the river I bluffed all in.