Come yell at me (very iffy turn 3-bets with river checks)

[milesdyson]

[ QUOTE ]
still like the first hand, however. I'm the only one who has even tried to argue against it by using some sort of logical reasoning (I've also argued for it using that same reasoning). It's close, but I'm leaning towards liking my 3-bet. I'm still up for debate on it, but no one has actually debated with me than to say, "why don't you just call down?" which I've answered.

[/ QUOTE ]
yeah i thought about it some more. you've been right in saying that you're not risking any more bets by 3-betting here and either folding to a cap or folding to a river donk. you're also right that you're still going to get all your bets in if you do improve whether you 3-bet or call the turn.

the pot is 7 BB when it gets to you, and this is the part of the "equation" that most significantly affects wanting him to fold pure bluffs, because that's the only benefit i can see from the turn 3-bet.

if you call, the pot is 8 BB and you allow him to bluff again (or value bet if he hits) with his pure bluffs. assuming he always has 6 outs with his pure bluffs (which he doesn't, especially because i think he'd do this a lot with Ax), he will improve 6/40 times (52 - 4 tens - 4 aces - 4 board cards), or he is 5.7:1 to improve. you obviously want him to fold 6 outs.

obviously this is only a tiny part of it all. you have to know how often he is actually doing this with a pure bluff and how often he will actually call you with two random overcards.

and something you touched on earlier - about using our judgment whether or not to call the river. i think this may be pretty important since we should be able to somewhat decently estimate how much certain river cards affect our equity.

tough problem