Should I call this river check-raise?

I'd say the usual open in this game is $15 most of the time, $20 some of the time.

Sure, it's not unreasonable to say that villain could be calling wider than the chart I posted - I am of course just estimating. But I know for sure that he is 3betting a tight and overwhelmingly value-heavy range.

I'd argue that my bet size relative to the pot is more relevant than my bet size relative to the remaining stack depth. I agree that I have capped my range by calling on the flop and the turn, but when I bet the river, it's with the polarized sections of that capped range.

Adding to my post above, now that I'm on a computer, not my phone...

Your river bet was 66% pot, which seems "large" as a portion of the pot, but 1/2 pot to full pot bets really aren't "large" river bets. Over-bets are large. Under 1/2 pot bets are small. 1/2 pot to pot are basically somewhere in between.

Also, $125 isn't a large bet in absolute dollar terms, for a 2/5 game. It's 25bb's. It's definitely not that large when he has another $400 behind.

The problem with this 2/3 sizing is that V can jam $400 with value or as a bluff. If you bet $250 into $190, or even just $200, his jam doesn't have enough fold equity for him to do it as a bluff, and its hard for him to find that raise with thin value.

I've been saying since the jump that he could be making this play with worse 9x, but he might not have thought he was bluffing, because of your line. He might think your pre-flop raise range doesn't have very much 9x in it, especially if he has 9x, and that if you did have a strong 9x, you'd raise flop for value / protection, for the same reason he donked out on the flop with his 9x.

Even thought the 6 on the turn brings in T8, he probably doesn't think you have much T8 in your range, and even if you do, he can still boat up, so he doesn't take his foot off the gas yet. On the river, any flush draw you might have bricked out, so you might bluff if he checks. If you have KK or K9, or A9, or T8, he might think you'd bet bigger.

So he checks to you, to let you bluff with your busted flush draws, or value bet thin with AA, AK, maybe TT-QQ. Maybe you'd take this sizing with everything in your range, including KK/K9, and T8 and A9, but he might think you'd fork your range into hands that bet big to target the top of his range, and hands that bet smaller to target the bottom of his range.

So when you bet $125 into $190, when he has $400 behind, he decides you're either bluffing or going for thin value with a hand his 9x beats, because he thinks you'd bet larger with a better hand. He sees your small bet as a green light to check-raise, because your line just doesn't look all that strong.

Maybe he thinks there's a slight chance you have a hand like T9, or J9, or Q9, but if he has 9x, your 9x combos make up a much smaller portion of your overall range, and most of your 9x would raise flop or turn, or go bigger on the river, at least maybe the better 9x combos, and the 9x combos that take your size are going to be the weaker combos. Maybe you wouldn't agree with that, but that could be HIS perspective here.

Thinking about what his pre-flop range looks like isn't as useful as thinking about what his flop donking range looks like. Yeah, maybe he's capped his range when he checks river, but your range is also capped when you don't raise flop or turn, and then don't go for a bigger bet on the river.

At one point you're saying he's polarized his range with his flop and turn bets, but then you say he's capped his range with his river check. I don't know if he can be both polarized and capped, but what does that range look like, either way? To me, the only hands that make sense to donk flop, barrel turn, and check-raise river are hands like weak 9x, and K7.

And, if we think his range is capped when he checks...why are we folding to his raise? Wouldn't that indicate a bluff, or a worse value hand, if he's capped? If he's polarized, and we're just going to call down according to MDF, surely we could be folding AA, AK, and TT-QQ, so 9x has to be close to the top of our range, and a solid call, not a fold, the way this played out, right?

I'm just not buying that he donked flop with T8, turned a straight, bets again, and then check-raises the river. I'm not buying that he flopped a boat, donked out, barreled turn, and then slows down when the K rolls off, unless he's scared you have KK, and wants to check-evaluate, based on your raise size, but even that is pretty unlikely. If he has a boat, he's just going broke if you have KK.

His flop donk and turn barrel look like he's betting for value and protection against a draw. His river check looks like he's either hoping you'll check back, or that you'll bet a medium-to-large size he can flat call, or that you'll bet a smaller size that he can check-raise.

It doesn't make a lot of sense for him to bet with weak 9x or K7, because you're folding all your busted draws, and raising with all your thicker value.

If you bet big on the river, he can't raise as a bluff, and it would be hard for him to raise 9x for value, but it's also hard for him to fold 9x. When you take this size, it looks to him like you were calling the whole way with AA, or maybe AcKc that ran into TPTK, or possibly TT-QQ, and occasionally maybe some weaker 9x combo, and are now betting for thin value.

The thing is, he's not wrong. You were betting thin, just not as thin as it looked from his perspective. If you're not going to check back the river, then you should bet a size that doesn't induce a raise for value or as a bluff.

A 2/3 pot bet of $125 with $400 behind isn't polarized. An over-bet is polarized. Your 2/3 pot bet looks like thin value or a bluff, especially when combined with your actions on earlier streets. Whether you agree or not, your opponent likely thinks you'd bet larger with thick value.

When you bet this hand, you're not polarized, regardless of your size. Bart Hanson would say you're de-polarizing, by betting for thin value, but when you de-polarize, you should still take a polar size. The point is to make a big bet that your opponent thinks would be repping a very narrow range of nutted value, when you're actually using that size with your entire value range, both nutted and thin-value hands.

The problem is your river bet size. It's too small. You induce V to raise when you take this size, and put yourself in the blender. Either check back, bet much smaller, or bet much bigger. These in-between sizes don't work.

I don't know why you're assuming he would 3bet with all those hands, random players don't 3bet that wide just because it's a button open they'd call with them and raise maybe 99+ and AQ+.

First off, he's not a "random player" if OP has a ton of hours with V.

Secondly, we don't know what random players are doing. Sure, we might know what the population is generally doing, but any one player could be doing his own thing. If we're going to do everything off population reads, fine, but the population can still get out of line sometimes, so no read is 100%.

I don't know why we would assume anything about what V is doing, at least not 100% of the time, which is why I qualified my statements to allow for the possibility that V might be doing this or that, rather than always doing this or that.

The thing that strikes me about this discussion is that OP is looking at charts to determine what V's pre-flop range looks like, and what hands are raising vs calling, whereas many others are just assuming what V's range looks like pre, and post, and on the river, yet not necessarily tying it all together in a logically consistent way.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm just looking at the actual action, taking it and OP's reads at face value, and trying to come to the most logical conclusions, without letting assumptions get in the way. I could be wrong, and V could be doing something I don't think he's doing, but at least I'm not pounding the table saying it's always and only a better hand that takes this line.

V can play pre-flop according to OP's charts - or not - and get to the river with some hands that can take this line, and yet are hands that OP can beat. Yes, he could have a better hand, but what better hands does V have, and how often are those hands taking this line?

I just don't see the logical consistency in thinking that V only has nutted value on the river, when according to OP's charts, a lot of V's better 9x combos are raises pre, not calls. And according to GTO, V has 0% donks on the flop. V isn't doing what he's supposed to be doing, so maybe we can allow for some ambiguity.

If the consensus is we shouldn't bet-call here, then we should just check-back, no? Or if we're going to bet-fold, then perhaps it's worth considering what size our bet should be, rather than ignoring the size, and saying it's just always a bet-fold. If we're going to bet-fold, why not go smaller? If we're not bet-folding, why not go bigger?

Taking this size to get called by worse, without a plan to call or fold if V raises, assumes that V is just never raising, but here we are, with V raising. Like I said, we shouldn't necessarily assume V does or doesn't do anything 100% of the time.

I don't see how V can do a bunch of stuff he shouldn't ever do, and then also somehow always be doing one thing rather than the other. The way this was played, I'd call V's jam, and be okay with it if I was wrong. If you and others want to fold, okay, fine, I don't think it's a huge mistake, but I don't think it's a slam-dunk insta-fold, not even close.

Sure, I agree that my 66% pot bet size opens the door for him to jam with value/bluffs.

I strongly doubt he's check-jamming worse 9x hands for value. If anything, I'd expect him to check-call those hands due to being concerned that I was slow-playing all along, or to use those hands as bluff-catchers when I bet the river.

I'm not forking my range into big bets/small bets on this river. I'm using a single size and betting a balanced, polarized range.

Yes, his range is polarized when he donks flop and bets turn. It's hypothetically capped when he checks the river, and then re-polarized when he check-raises.

I haven't taken a close look at his range yet but that is something I intend to look at in a later post. When he check-raises the river in theory it should be a polarized range of nuts and air.

According to MDF, the solver folded my combo - but when I counted combos, I found it to be a call (but the solver and I had very different ranges on the river). In any case, it's pretty close, and absolutely clear that my hand is merely a bluff catcher (and not a value beater). In my opinion this is a value-heavy spot, and therefore overfolding is the correct adjustment (but I could be wrong). This means that the weakest hand I call with may be A9, for example. I think 9x is really the cutoff point and in that case I would lean to calling with the strongest 9x and folding with the weakest ones.

Yeah I do see where you're coming from regarding that it doesn't add up he's going to donk with 9x/an open-ender, and slow down on the river - with the exception of exactly K9 and KK, which are the hands about which I was most concerned in the hand when it was played. Another thing to consider is that this villain is also going to have AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT at some frequency (he doesn't always 3bet them) and these hands also make sense to donk flop with (if one is going to donk). Of those, perhaps AA and certainly KK might decide to check-jam river (whilst the others are check-folding).

Having a ton of hours with someone doesn't mean he's 3betting us that light though. I'm just saying most people don't 3bet with the range you suggested, even if they play everyday (regs or pros) but your right it's definitely possible he could but I'm not about to donate my stack to him assuming he's raising us with hands we beat unless I've seen him 3betting that range in that type of spot, but that's just me.

My river bet is polarized by definition, because I'm checking back all middle-strength hands to get to showdown, and betting the strongest hands for value. If I'm betting value hands then I have to balance with bluffs, and that is how the range becomes polarized. I'm also simply giving up with a portion of my range. It is exactly value or bluff, as you mentioned.

The reason I think the 66% pot size is justified is because I don't have many bluffs on this river. I have a range of value hands that clearly want to bet, and I have to balance them with bluffs. But when I get to this river, there are not many hands in my range that I can use for bluffs, which means that I cannot use a larger bet size without being value-heavy, which is a problem. Here's the range I have on the 9796K river:

Of that range, I'm going to bet AA (6 combos), KK (3 combos), Kx (4 combos), 9x (28 combos), 99 (1 combo), 77 (3 combos), 66 (3 combos) - 48 total value combos,

and 8x of clubs (6 combos), 6x of clubs (8 combos), and the Q4, JT, J5 and 54 of clubs - 18 total bluff combos.

(Note that I do not have 100% of the combos as detailed in the image. For example, some of the 9x combos have raised earlier in the hand). The remaining hands are taking their showdown value or simply not bluffing and giving up. The hands that check back the river are the A-high and Q-high missed flush draws (except the A8 and Q4, which are bluffs), K7, K5-K2, QQ-TT and 7x.

In my opinion it's a mistake to turn too many flush draws into bluffs (because we want villain to have those hands when we're bluffing him). In the case of the A-high missed flush draws, they are happy to take their showdown value.

So there are no more hands that I can use as bluffs (everything is accounted for) which means I cannot use a larger bet size on the river without becoming imbalanced, or bluffing too much with missed flush draws.

If I bet smaller then I have to bet an even narrower value range, balanced with even fewer bluffs. I don't see a reason to do this, as it means I get less value with my value hands, like good Kx and AA. The same issue arises if I decide to bet bigger; this means that I include more bluffs and less value. But there are no more bluffs to use, so again the only way to do this is to remove thin value hands, and checking back with AA for example feels a little tight when faced with the check on the river.

Just to be clear, I did not say that villain is playing the BB as GTO suggests. The calling range may be somewhat similar, but the 3betting range is vastly different. There is definitely a lot of room for ambiguity.

Bart Hanson is a big champion of the "thin value bet and fold to raises" approach at low stakes poker. I don't agree with him on everything, but I do agree about this.

Yes, I value bet the river to get called by worse. When I get raised, I believe this hand should be a fold - but it's close.

yes this sounds like the player type to memorize preflop charts and execute them ingame

All I'm saying is that when you get to the river the way you did, with T9, it's either a check-back, or a really small bet hoping to induce a raise, or a really big bet hoping to get called. If you're going to bet some other size, then know WHY you're taking that size, what range you're targeting, and what your plan is if you get raised.

If the plan was to bet-fold, because you think V is never check-raising with worse, then fold. If the plan was to bet-call, because you think you have the best hand, then call. There shouldn't be a bet-evaluate line here.

Betting that 2/3 pot size, without knowing what you're going to do if you get raised, points to a problem with the bet size, and perhaps the line you've taken. You basically slow-played a big hand, but then somehow put yourself into a spot where suddenly you're questioning if it's all that strong.

If I can make a reasonably good argument that he might take this line with a worse hand, BECAUSE you took the line you did, then there's a compelling argument for taking a step back, taking a hard look at your line, and considering what you could have done differently to avoid bet-folding on the river.

It's only a close decision because you made it close with your line and your bet sizing.

T9 is a clear value bet when he checks to me on the river. It bets as part of a polarized range that all uses the same bet size.

The bet size is dictated by my ratio of value hands to bluffs. Betting any bigger/smaller is theoretically imbalanced.

I'm targeting the capped range that checks the river, which includes Kx, 7x, 6x, and some QQ-TT. If I get raised I simply fold the weaker part of my range, and T9 is a threshold hand.

If it's a clear value bet, and also part of a polarized range, then take a polarized size. 2/3 pot isn't it. You don't need to be balanced here. Let that go.

If T9 is a threshold hand, then check it back, or bet it with a plan to bet-fold, or a plan to bet-call. This bet-don't-know-what-to-do-when-V-raises is problematic.

It can't be a strong enough hand to bet for value as part of a polarized range AND also a threshold hand that may or may not be strong enough to bet if you get raised. That's not logically consistent.

Checking it back because it's a threshold hand is consistent. Betting it with a plan to bet-fold because it's a little too thin to bet-call, or a plan to bet-call because it's too strong to bet-fold are both consistent.

Thinking it's a clear value bet and part of a polar range of nuts-or-nothing, then deciding it's marginal value when you get raised is muddled thinking that will lead you back to situations like this, where you thought you knew what you were doing, but then you didn't.

PS - if it's really that much of a toss-up decision, then flip a coin or find some other way to randomize, so you're not wasting mental energy trying to figure out what you should do. If it's 50-50, then there doesn't need to be any debate, just randomize, and act.

The bet size is dictated by my ratio of value hands to bluffs. If I use a larger, more polarized size, then I can't bet as wide for value, because I don't have enough bluffs in my range to balance the value. This would mean checking back with solid Kx, AA and some 9x, and I don't think that's optimal on this runout. Can you state clearly which hands you think should bet for a polarized, 150% pot size here?

T9 is a threshold hand when faced with the check-raise, i.e. on the threshold of calling/folding. When checked to on the river, it's a clear value bet - and then has to decide what to do in the (imo highly unlikely event) that we get raised. If the decision of what to do with his hand facing the check-raise was obvious, I wouldn't have needed to post in a forum about it. Of course the weaker value hands in the betting range on the river have a tough decision when they get raised; this is completely normal.

It's not a threshold hand when faced with a check on the river. It's a clear value bet. It becomes a threshold hand when it's faced with a check-raise. So the plan with this hand on the river to to bet-decide, in the rare outcome that we get check-raised. It's a nutted hand when faced with a check, and a bluff-catcher when it bets and gets check-raised. Hand classifications are not static.

As far as randomization/combo selection goes, I often decide situations like this with my kicker/suits, and in this case my kicker is weak but my suits are good (no clubs). At least theoretically, he shouldn't be bluffing with that many missed flush draws on this river, so perhaps the kicker is more relevant. That said, the general player pool certainly overbluffs with missed draws. I'm going to take a look at his donking range soon and perhaps that might shed some more light on it.

Okay so here goes with attempting to take a look at villain's range here when he decides to donk the flop. I'm going to use Upswing's recommended value to bluff ratios for flop, turn and river in order to remain balanced:

https://upswingpoker.com/what-is-bluff-t...

One thing to consider first of all is whether villain has a check-raise range, as well as a donking range? For balance I'm going to say yes, and this means that not all his thick value or high equity semi-bluffs etc go into the donking range (some will go into the check-raise range, and others will go into the check-call range).

So to recap the hand:

PREFLOP

It folds to me in the BTN and I open T♥9♠ to $15. SB folds and an unorthodox villain calls in the BB. I estimate his range to be as follows:

FLOP

9♣9♥7♣

Villain now splits his range into donking, check-raising, check-calling and check-folding. Most of the thick value/high-equity bluffs get split between the donking and check-raise ranges (although some of the weakest 9x and some combos of overpairs go into the check-call range to protect it. Many of the higher flush draws like Ax, and quads/flopped boats, also go into the check-call range).

So an example value donking range could be:

KK, QQ - 1 combo of each (non-club/heart combos, as we want to get action from clubs and hearts)
JJ, TT - 1 combo of each (non-club/heart combos)
9x - 22 combos (2 combos of 9x suited and 20 combos of 9x offsuit)

That's 26 value combos, so there needs to be about 50 semi-bluffs/pure bluffs to balance the value range. Those hands could be:

OESDs: T8s - 2 combos, T8o - 4 combos, 86s - 2 combos, 86o - 4 combos (12 combos total)
Flush draws: AT, A8, KJ, K6, QJ, Q8, JT, J8, J6, J5, T6, T5, 85, 84, 65, 63, 43, 32 (18 combos)
Gutshots: JT, J8, T6, 85, 65 (10 combos)
Overcard backdoor flush/straight hands: QhTh, JhTh, Ah8h, Kh8h (4 combos) - I call these hands "overdoors".
Backdoor NFDs: combos of Acxx (6 combos, especially ones with an 8 that can become a useful blocker to use as a bluff later in the hand).

That's 50 bluff combos, which together with the value hands create the donking range:

TURN

The turn is the 9♣9♥7♣6♥

- T8 and 85 that barreled make a straight and now become value hands.
- 6x that barreled made a pair and now become check-calls.
- Overdoors turned a flush draw and will continue to barrel.
- 96 turned a boat; these combos will split between betting and check-calling.

This turn card completes many straights and gives the 6x bluff combos that bet the flop a pair, which means the range of semi-bluffs available to bet the turn is somewhat reduced, because the 6x now has showdown value and moves to the check-call range. The remaining hands that villain can use as bluffs are:

Flush draws: AT, A8, KJ, QJ, Q8, JT, J8, J5, T5, 84, 43, 32 (12 combos)
Gutshots: JT, J8, (4 combos)
Overdoors: QhTh, JhTh, Ah8h, Kh8h (4 combos)
Backdoor NFDs: combos of Acxx (6 combos)

So there are 26 total bluff hands available, but half of these are needed to balance the check-raising range. So there are only 13 bluffs combos available to balance the betting range. This means that villain can only value bet 13 combos of hands on the turn. The value hands that he gets to the turn with are:

KK (1 combo), QQ (1 combo), JJ (1 combo), TT (1 combo), 9x (19 combos), straights (13 combos) boats - (4 combos) = 40 total combos

He has way too many value hands relative to bluffs and is therefore forced to put the weakest 14 value hands and some nutted slow plays (overpairs, the weakest 9x and most combos of 96 respectively) into the check-call range. This leaves 26 value hands that he can split equally between betting and checking with the intention to raise, and thus be correctly balanced with the 26 available bluff combos.

It makes sense to bet all straights, as they are close to top of range and can cooler 9x hands.

So villain is going to value bet:

1 combo of 96o for a boat
6 combos of straights
6 combos of the best 9x

And bluff:

6 combos of flush draws: AT, KJ, JT, J8, T5, 43
2 combos of gutshots: JT, J8
2 combos of overdoors: Ah8h, QhTh
3 combos of backdoor NFDs Acxx (that will jam most club rivers as a bluff)

Therefore his betting range is as follows:

RIVER

The river is the 9♣9♥7♣6♥K♦

This river doesn't change much; the flush draws have missed but villain's Kx flush draw improved to top pair. His 3 combos of K9 have improved to a boat. Villain again now needs to split his value range into bets and check-raises. Boats, straights and 9x (of which only A9 remains) are value betting/check-raising. The same 13 combos that value bet the turn are going to value bet the river, so half will go in the betting range and half will go in the check-raise range. There are four combos of boats, six combos of straights and three combos of A9 that will be divided equally between the betting and check-raise ranges. Those value hands need to be balanced with bluffs. There are 12 bluff combos available; 3 combos are needed for the value range 3 are needed for the check-raise range. The other bluffs left over from the turn are simply giving up and checking with the intention of folding (except for KJ, which I assume is check-calling any reasonably-sized bet).

What are the best bluffs to use on this river? I think probably 8x, as it blocks T8, 98 and 85. Tx is also good as it blocks T9 and T8. In both cases villain ideally want to unblock clubs, and to a lesser degree hearts. So of the combos he has in his range from the turn, it seems that the best combos to use are:

The JT and J8 gutshots, Ah8h, Ac8x, QhTh and Jc8c. The betting range on the river can use half of these, so for example: Jc8c, Ac8x, QhTh. The full betting range on the river would then be:

2 combo of boats (one combo of 96 and one combo of K9)
3 combos of straights
2 combos of A9
Jc8c, Ac8x and QhTh as bluffs

And the range that checks intending to raise is:

2 combos of boats (K9)
3 combos of straights
1 combo of A9
J8, Ah8h and JT as bluffs

It's interesting to note that on every street the need to balance the donking range with the check-raise range cuts in half the number of value bets and shrinks the range considerably. If you don't balance the donking range and instead donk with all the value hands, then the checking range becomes obviously weak and easily exploitable (which is a well-known issue with donking). So of course it's much better to instead move all the hands that have been donking into the check-raise range in order to a) keep the checking range protected and b) have an effective counter to the button c-betting too liberally when the BB checks to them - which they can certainly do if the BB is using donks, because the size of the check-raise range is massively reduced.

Additionally, some people in the thread were arguing that villain has no need to check strong hands on the river, and that therefore his check-raise range was weaker than might be expected. I hope the above has illustrated that that is true only if villain is being imbalanced and betting all of his value hands. If he is being balanced then the checking range on the river is protected and in fact in this case contains about 60% nutted hands (A9 and better) that are intending to raise if they face a bet. That figure actually seems a little high - so perhaps the single combo of A9 might end up check-calling, but in any case when villain checks the river it certainly isn't with a bunch of weak holdings.

Another question is how much K9 villain gets to the river with. This depends which 9x hands he decides to bet/check with earlier in the hand. My reasoning is that it makes more sense to bet with the 9x hands that have higher kickers, as they can cooler lower 9x hands. But other villains may have other methods for choosing which 9x combos to bet (or just select randomly) - so of course there is no way to know for sure, but I suspect most people have a stronger preference/natural bias for betting with higher kickers. K9 is pretty much top of range for villain in this hand, and if he's been barreling with it from the flop then I'd argue there is certainly a case for check-raising it on the river, because it blocks so many of the hands with which hero can call the river bet.

Update: I just met villain at the casino. We had a long discussion about the hand. He told me with 100% assurance of no BS what he had, and it's a hand that nobody in the thread even mentioned or considered! But it does somewhat make sense given the actions that he took throughout the hand, and the fact that I under-repped my hand.

Any final guesses?

7h8h

Sent from my Mi 9T using Tapatalk

I'll throw an internet quatloo for 86cc.

Curious what the result will be, and certainly a very educational thread.

Oh go on I'll play.

KJ.

TsTd

88.

I already guessed he might have worse 9x and K7, a counterfeited 76, or 8h7h, 86s, and 65s. I guess I'll add some weird KcXc combo, and possibly Ac6c or Ac8c.

Hard to think he's taking this line with some hand that didn't connect with the board in some way. I'd think he'd have something that was either drawing to the nuts or is blocking some nutted hands.

Okay so without further ado it's time to to announce the hand! It was......

A♣K♣

So what can we say about this hand in relation to the OOP preflop/donking/betting ranges that we looked at above?

PREFLOP: as mentioned, this is an unorthodox villain. Most players are 3betting this hand almost always in BB vs BTN. I had him calling about 50% of the time with it, which I still think is approximately correct for this villain (3betting is obviously higher EV).

FLOP: villain has drilled the flop with a NFD plus AK overcards; 15 outs twice to TPTK/the nut flush. He decides to donk, which is understandable in some respects as he's smashed the flop. How can we view this decision from a theoretical point of view? He's meant to check with 100% of hands (more or less), and usually - I believe - the strongest flush draws; AK, AQ etc, should go into the check-call range, because they have showdown value with the strong A-high and in some respects just want to showdown and realize their equity as cheaply as possible, assuming that they don't hit (whereas other flush draws, especially combo draws, like to check-raise). In my analysis of his ranges, I had him check-calling with this hand.. What does it mean when we see villain donking with this hand instead of check-calling? Possibly that he's betting too many flush draws, and that perhaps as a result his donking range is bluff-heavy - all the more reason to simply call with trips when faced with the bet.

TURN: nothing much changes here; if he has A♣K♣ in his donking range then - as long as he's well-balanced - it's a fine hand with which to continue semi-bluffing on the turn. The flush draws that I had betting the flop and checking the turn were only the 6x ones that turned a pair. However, this does still mean that his donking range is likely to be slightly bluff-heavy.

RIVER: villain hits TPTK and decides to check, which is the correct decision. His value range on the river (at least according to my analysis) is four combos of boats, six combos of straights and three combos of A9 that will be divided equally between the betting and check-raise ranges, and those value hands will be balanced with the best bluff candidates. In the ranges I approximated, he doesn't have many Kx flush draws, because they should be inclined to play a little more passively, mostly check-calling, due to their showdown value. I had him only getting to the river with the KJ flush draw, which I believe should check-call. Looking at his range of value hands on the river, AK is clearly far too thin to check-raise and should be a check-call, even when I've under-repped my hand by only calling on the flop and turn. For one thing, his lack of bluff combos on the turn (as the straights completed and the 6x flush draws made a pair) mean that he cannot bet as wide for value, and many of his 9x hands are becoming check-calls from the turn onwards. This effect is carried over to the river, meaning that he cannot bet/check-raise AK for value and I believe it should simply be a check-call instead. His close to potsize bet on the turn significantly narrows my range, and a bet/check-raise with AK cannot get called by a weaker hand as a result (I don't have any Kx flush draws because he blocks them all with his hand). If he starts to go as wide as AK/KJ on the river, and he's not balancing with bluffs, then of course I have an even closer decision with T9, but only because he's value-cutting himself (rather than over-bluffing, which would be the normal reason to call down wider).

So there we have it. He went too thin for value and I folded the best hand - but it's probably still the right fold.

come on man. way too many words and analysis in this thread. if your conclusion after all this is "its still probably the right fold", lol.

you are trying to play chess after the fact with someone that's drawing a cartoon on a tic tac toe board (to justify your line)