A seemingly tight passive "reg" raises HJ to 2.5bb
Hero has AcKs on BB and raises to 10bb
100bb start stacks
Pot = 20bb
Hero cbets 6bb
Pot = 32bb
Hero barrel 24bb
HJ raises to 48bb
Villain has 36bb behind
So, on turn we are obv getting super good odds to call. On the river, same thing. I think it's clear we basically have a bluff catcher here.
So, on turn we need around 18% to continue, same on river.
Here are my thoughts. I think this particular player is unlikely to be doing this with a spazz out hand like KQ, and also likely has no bluffs. I do think this player can have AK in range, maybe even all given the positions/player profile. Given this, it's unlikely for the action to end on the river. So even while we are getting a good price on turn, we are likely facing the rest of the money on the river. In situations like this, do we need to factor that in, or do we take it street by street?
Street by street, we need about 18% on each, and we probably have that and just go call call.
If it's accounting for a near 100% river jam, we need more like 30% collectively, given we will be calling the turn min raise+the river jam.
I do think it is the later, that when a range is super face up and we can accurately predict the next streets action, we can take into account the money invested on turn+the money thats coming on river and adjust our expected equity needed to continue.
In this situation, I guess we are just to shallow to ever fold, because if he has 6 AK combos, and 4-6 nut combos, and we win half the pot against AK, we will have anywhere from .28-.42 equity against that range. But if we are deeper, than maybe we can find scenarios to fold. This is also if we are 100% confident that he never does this with anything other than a range of A2s, AK, 22/77. So there is a margin of error that sometimes he just punts for whatever reason. Just was wondering if this was a spot I could have made an explo turn fold against a super strong looking line.
I do think folding is possible if we think AK doesnt raise turn, because then we really are just lacking equity against a range of just the nuts. Hard to say though without a big sample.