1-3, River decision facing shove with a full house

Hard to fold 2nd nuts.

But I guess we can fold turn if we know he's doing it for value only.

Also hard to imagine villain bluffing this line

Fold turn.

fold to turn overbet

He’s overbetting cause he wants his kicker to play for the high hand.

Wow - nobody will be surprised
I think I see it differently
With all those aces, villain likely doesn’t have one. Hero checking back the flop showed weakness. When the 3rd ace shows - any pocket pair could think they are good, and you beat all of those.

You got a lot of short - fold turn advice
But I would have to tank before deciding
Looking for tells - maybe even showing villain my cards to get a reaction. I don’t think this is a simple decision.

I see this some, never really thought about it. Is there something to be implied by this?

If he bought in short, say $300 instead of $500, and stacked his chips that way, I'd see it as an indication he's new to live poker and likely to play scared. This is based on how I've seen others play when they bought in short and stacked chips in 1/2-height columns, especially when they arranged those half-stacks in such a way that they were more visible to opponents, such as spreading them out along the rail.

I think the psychology at play is that they're self-conscious about buying in short, and the half stacks are an attempt to make their stack look bigger. It's sometimes the case that they'll be hesitant to bet or call a bet for an amount exceeding $50, requiring them to break one of those stacks. They'll have become more elastic (price sensitive) as bet sizes approach $50. When they break a stack, they tend to have a stronger hand.

In some cases, it's a sign that the player wants to signal that they won't be bullied by the bigger stacks. The configuring of their stack in a way that doesn't conform to what other players do is basically peacocking, a sub-conscious effort to establish their dominance. They'll tilt easily and prone to spew.

People suggesting to fold turn are absolutely out of their minds. You underrepped your hand by checking back and clearly beat value (and random merge-y spew) on the river with KK. Fish routinely make mistakes related to relative hand strength versus absolute hand strength. You can't fold here without a very strong read.

Calling and getting shown AX is a cooler -- shake it off and go again. Folding and getting shown QQ or JJ is an unmitigated disaster.

We only put $60 into the pot, starting $600 eff. V over-bet turn 1.5x, $200 into $135. It's not a disaster to fold turn and surrender $60. It's a disaster to call the $200, and go to the river with such a low SPR that we'll be getting 2.5 to 1 if V jams.

This hand can cost us $60 if we fold, or $600 if we call.

We might win $600 if V turns something into a big, two-street bluff, which seems pretty unlikely at these stakes.

I do the $50 stacks sometimes, call me a fish if you want. Usually it's when I am at less than full stack and need a better estimate of my stack size (rather than $100+ "something") bc computing SPR and planning a bet sequence is part of my routine when going to the flop.

That doesn't seem to be the case here, seems more like a player that doesn't like bet sizes that go into the triple digits. And here he is making one such bet on the turn. He could easily have an Ace and from his perspective you very easily could too. So why would he be firing out with QQ or worse? (Unless it's like he can win HHJp with AAAJJ and fold you out?)

There is only one Ace left but there are many side cards K-J that go with it, so the number of possible combos is between 2 and 10 if this is a player with a fairly tight raise/call range.

HAND REVEAL:

The advice to fold turn is driven by the recognition that we'll often, if not usually fold river if he barrels. Calling the turn over-bet just to fold river for less than pot is effectively torching.

Alternatively, if we call turn and river, we don't expect him to be bluffing often enough to make it +EV.

To simplify, the three most likely outcomes after calling turn are 1) the river checks through (we probably win, unless he also has KK); 2) we fold river (torch); and 3) calling turn and river (sometimes we win, but often, if not usually, we lose).

We won't win very often after we call turn. To make that turn call, we have to think he's over-bluffing on the turn, and will give up and check river more often than not, or we have to commit to calling the rest off on the river if we think he'll run it. Nothing in our reads suggests V is capable of over-bluffing here.

If we're going to assume our hand was good on the flop, we could have c-bet. If we were checking back to induce V to bluff, we got our wish, but then we would auto-call the turn and river, not debate what to do on the turn.

As a test of our logic, imagine we c-bet flop small and he x/r'd. Would we call? If not, then we weren't sure our hand was good enough for us to want to induce a turn lead.

Being under-repped wouldn't seem to matter much here. We could check back flop with all our PP's and all our Ax. On the turn his range is Ax or a bluff. KK and QQ/JJ are effectively the same - just bluff-catchers.

I used to fall into a trap of "If i call turn, I have to call river."
You can call turns and make decisions on rivers depending on opponents actions and not auto-pilot your lines.

To make our main default in a spot like this to always call or always fold is a massive mistake IMO. Often times it is very situational and you have to analyze each event separately.

To call either action "torch" is also really hyperbolic and doesn't contribute a lot of thought into an analysis.

If you are finding a slam dunk call in this spot I would argue that you put yourself in spots where you might be overcalling rivers and then just saying "oh its a cooler, how can i fold?"

We have to remember this is live poker, where a spot like this is probably massively underbluffed. I think the hand reveal here is an likely an exception but Im not positive, i do think it makes for good discussion for sure.

No one seems to be asking themselves how many people would ever overbet the turn, with the stone-cold nuts and a definitive lock on the hand. There is no way I'm folding KK here without a very specific read that this guy could be that guy.

If he bet 100 on the turn and then shoved 464, then I might be in a tough spot, but after this turn sizing I'm gonna call and never fold the river. If he has it, he has it.

But of course I saw the result, so maybe I'm biased.

Without reading the reveal, ***as played*** I’m shrug calling. He might be dying to flip over 99 after you fold to show he’s no kid. Folding on the river may be correct, but then you should’ve probably folded the turn—The Farha Factor.

It would be helpful if the mp who folded to the 3bet pf gave us any tell as those aces hit the board.

OP tells us V wasn't bluffing. He thought he was betting for value.

That makes analyzing this hand challenging. Fish tend to size up with value, especially when the pot is small due to a previous street being checked through. Fish tend not to make big bluffs in spots where it's hard to be bluffing.

If we had a read that V is capable of turning SDV into a massive bluff, that would be different. If we were given a read that V is capable of massively over-valuing a worse hand, that would be different.

All we were told is that V is a fish who keeps his chips in small stacks, mostly limps, and gets himself in weird spots with odd hands.

With that as a read, how are we to decide he's bluffing or over-valuing worse here?

The read was a bit vague and we had to fill in some gaps about what it meant to for instance that he gets into tough spots with weird hands.

The HH where V is allin with TP vs an OVP could be telling tho. If it's a case where he overplays, e.g c/r big, we have a model for this posted hand. If he merely calls down, it's ambiguous.