NL100 87s, 3 barrel bluff?

Important things about this spot are firstly, how well you can actually value bet here, and how frequently you bluff.

If you don't value bet that thin (as in you're not going to be able to bet KxTs here for value, then your betsizing is way to small. Because by the point of the river you are very much polarised and he's getting a GREAT price. I'd be happy to flick it in vs you with AJ no spade in that situation. you should bet BIG on the river if you are actually polarised to K/Qs or air on the river, give him a way worse price to bluff catch, and allow yourself to value-bet bigger when you actually have it.

If you can value bet thinner here then the sizing is pretty decent imo, although be prepared to get called a lot cos he's getting a good price, but thats fine as you have plenty of value bets in your range.

One point as well, this guy has quite solid stats so I wouldn't be surprised if his range to defend from the blinds is quite strong (mostly big card hands and suited hand with no blockers out for popular suited combo's) so that defo increases the chances he has a flush he wont fold OTR. Worth considering OTT before commiting to these plays - not I think this was a bad triple because I think it was fine.

Default bet bigger on the river with no history for me as well

My thoughprocess here was actually that by betting this size it looks more like it is for value, whereas if I'd bet larger I think most opponent would view it as more polarised and be more inclinded to "herocall" me. For that reason I thought that it would be more likely that he would fold his potential midpockets with a spade (which I think the majority of his range is after calling the turn, would you agree?) on the river with this sizing

What do you think about that?

Also, in your experience, would say that most regs raise like nut-3rd fds on the flop here? That was at least my assumption in the hand.

And how about aces without a spade, do you think most regs will fold these on the turn without reads?

Originally posted by axelphoney
My thoughprocess here was actually that by betting this size it looks more like it is for value, whereas if I'd bet larger I think most opponent would view it as more polarised and be more inclinded to "herocall" me. For that reason I thought that it would be more likely that he would fold his potential midpockets with a spade (which I think the majority of his range is after calling the turn, would you agree?) on the river with this sizing

What do you think about that?

Like I said, I like the sizing if you're value betting well enough here when you have a value hand. Then you would legitimately bet a little smaller with your entire range.

If however you actually ARE polarised, then you need to bet bigger, because your range has more bluffs than value bets so you need to give him a WORSE price to bluff-catch. If as the villain here I don't think you would VB the 10s, but I do think you can bluff, then AJ no spade is a pretty easy call for me.

If you won't be bluffing all that often here, then defo bet big as every call he makes will be bad.