redvulture61 said:

What bluffs  would a thinking villian put on here? Pocket 99s and 10s is all i can think off? Our range for betting the turn and river is so polarizing so why would a villian need to donk out on any street? On the river we are repping a missed draw or a monster hand EG two pair or better so with villians value range Eg, 22,AAs,55s, would check this river to allow himself to go for it all if we have a value hand and bluff missed draws. If villian had a missed flush draw himself i think he would donk the river becase thats what fish do bluff missed draws in obvious spots. I dont think we are at the top of our range here i think we have 55s, and 88s here and besides dont have to worry about being expoilted by some random donk in a $11 donkment. I think villian has ethier, 22,55s,88s, AAs. Would love to see the result of the hand. One last thing i forgot to mention. when we bet this river it looks like we are commited so it would be pretty suricidal for him to be bluffing here. Can this ever be a call apsolutely without a read no. 

WE cant realy have 88 here.  Betting the flop and turn with 88 seems relaly silly unless your plan is to fold out 99-kk.

There is one combo of AA, 1 combos of 22 and one combo of 55(if we assume he 3 bets these which isnt true for 99.9% of players). Thats 3 combos.  There are 8 combos of AK, and another 8 of AQ.  He has to be check/calling and going for thin value around 20% of the time for this to be the just as often as those nutty hands.  If we factor in the 3:1 odds we are getting he ihas to do it with 1 of the 16 combos of AK/AQ in order for us to be about breakeven.  This doesnt even factor in random bluffs fish will make with miss FDs and whatnot at these stakes.

Checking this river back would be criminal and lighting money on fire.  Dont do it.  Bet/folding is leagues better than checking back(although I still think bet/call is fine).  Not valuing worse aces or heros with 99-KK here on river is absurd.  I cant imaigne a world where checking the river would be something I thought about doing without rediculous ICM considerations.

The problem people alwyas make is taht they alwyas refero to low stakes donks in ways taht support their conclusion.  Some times people are like “this is a 11$ he isnt folding 3rd pair, dont bluff(or value bet your good hand)”  Then other times they will be like “This is an 11$ he is probably playing the nuts really badly here so fold or check back”.  You cant simply project your reads to fit what you want to do.

So we are in an 11$ tourney where people are obviously bad and not thinking, but yet you give them credit for never bluffing this river becuase of our percevied range, etc.  You are taking two vastly differnt veiwpoints, one of a novie(this is an 11$ they are bad) than the other of a semi experienced player(our perceived range, etc)  and using them to describe the same person.  You cant do this.