Good morning from Las Vegas. Didn't have a chance to snap a picture during the hand but here is the hand history:
2-5 at Bellagio(500 max buy in), Villain is a professional player but hasn't made any super aggressive plays in the 2 hours we've been playing together. Villain has 1100, we cover, EP raise to 20, all fold we 3-bet to 65 from SB with some hand worthy of a value 3 bet, BB folds EP calls Flop(135) is good but not great, definitely worth 3 streets of value if nothing changes but we're likely beat if we get raised on any street. We bet 75 get called Turn(285) changes nothing we still have 3 streets of value hand we bet 175, get called, River(635) not huge game changer, there are still worse hands that should call half pot and we only beat a bluff if he jams, we bet 300 he goes all-in for 785, we fold. Details like my actual hand and the board are intentionally left out because I think this situation comes up allot and actual hands aren't important. What's relevant is that we're playing low-mid stakes and we need to value bet when we have a hand worthy of value betting and we get shoved on. Here's the question, our opponent is also playing a low-mid stakes game when higher games are available, is he balanced in his river raising range? If he's bluffing, he's risking about 800 to win 900 after we 3 bet and bet 3 streets, remember, the buy in is 500 so this is risking 1.6 buy ins on a bluff, I'm not saying it's never a bluff but I don't think even professional players are balanced here and realize that my line is very exploitable but attempting to exploit it is so high variance I don't think my opponents are doing it. Thoughts on both sides, should we bet fold rivers when we have too much value to check? Should we make the suicide play ourselves with 4 bluff combos to balance our value range? Should we use more than 4 combos as an exploitative play because most players can't call a river shove anywhere near the 53% of the time required when we risk 800 to win 900?