1/2 AA on a draw-heavy flop.

lol you need to chill out. The read is that it weights towards a call. And the table talk is a relevant data point.

I'm still trying to work out whether this is a genuine question.

I mean, I've played against people who were high on various pharmaceuticals, recreational and non-recreational, and, funnily enough they seem be less risk-averse than those who weren't high. While I haven't actually seen them consuming things, the constant sniffing, white gluggy material around their nostrils, and the incessant talk were "tells" in this respect.

Conversely, those who are depressed, whether due to running bad, or other personality related reasons, probably are more risk-averse.

Poker = game of imperfect information, so, therefore, take-in whatever data points you can (while thinking probabilistically about it).

So, yes factor in the table-talk IMO (source: a twenty-year live poker vet).

I don't know how we got from "likes to talk" to "coked up".

The decision here seems pretty binary. We're either ahead or we're behind. He's either jamming better or he's jamming worse. There are some hands that make some sense for value and some that make sense for bluffs.

If "likes to talk" is code for "jamming any two" that's news to me.

He can talk. He can not talk. He can flash you a card. He can burp the gettysburg address. He’s not flatting 10 then going 220 on top of 20 because he wants you to call. Sweet merciful crap.

Well obviously if hes coked up you calll

Guys, I'm not trying to be pedantic. I actually think the read + reveal is the only interesting thing about the hand.

Everyone who said OP should call prior to seeing the reveal said that V could have some draws. Nobody said he could be shoving with total air, because he's a talkative Asian.

The reveal is surprising, regardless of the read, IMO. If there's some population read that says talkative Asian = will over-bet shove 12x with total air, I think that's worthy of some discussion.

I'll be pedantic. I didn't say he could have draws. I said he didn't have value. This leaves draws and air. I guess the talking part and the Asian part weight that toward air but I'm fine with whatever he's mixing here.

You've never seen a fish playing low stakes over-bet jam with thick value on draw-heavy boards? I feel like I see that at least once a month. In fact, I feel like every time I call a big over-bet jam from a fish, it's always the nuts, never a bluff.

This is a strategy forum. OP didn't give us much of a read, and it's not like we got three streets of action leading up to a big decision. This feels like we're just guessing. Maybe it's educated guessing, but it's still just guessing.

If we say we have to call because folding AA here is too big a deviation before we know more about V, okay, at least that's somewhat grounded in theory, regardless of whether or not it comports to reality. If we say the low-stakes population is under-bluffing here, that would at least rely on our aggregated experience playing live low stakes.

I'm not angry about being wrong. I said I'd probably sigh-call before I saw the reveal. It just seems odd to me that anyone would act as if it's a snap call based on the singular data point that OP deems V to be talkative (unless it's talkative combined with Asian, which is still an oddly specific and yet still largely generic read in this context).

If we're just ignoring the read and saying it's a snap call, then there's not much strat to be discussed, and the thread is just a waste of time. If we're basing the call on the "talkative Asian" read, that may be worth some debate, and seeing if we can get some additional data points from other forum members.