Donk-fold river?

This logic is flawed. You don't consider the whole subtree, just take out two branches and compare those, and that's why you come to this conclusion. If you want to be correct, every possible outcome should be taken into account, added up, and compared at their roots. I'll call these x* and b* (star is a common wildcard for every possible character that you may put after the previous character )

Characters designate the sequential actions taken by both players.

So x* is, when it goes either:

a) x-x
b) x-b-f
c) x-b-c
d) x-b-r
etc...(I ain't gonna list when it goes bet-3bet OTR, but for the sake of completeness it should be also mentioned)

And b* is:

f) b-f
g) b-c
h)b-r-f
i)b-r-c
etc....

Now instead of comparing b* to x* you just take c) and g)+h) and compare those, and neglect every other options, while in the above situation you win the most with a) and you didn't even think on that.

To make it simple:

with a bet OTR, you put in that one ( not the Russian ) bet for the one which your opponent makes the call with, and to make the bet profitable you need to win that bet back at least 50% of the time, including the possibility of getting raised as well of course. This means that in some cases you may need even more than 50% equity to bet out, because you may not have enough equity vs your opponents calling range that compensates frequency of your bet/folding, i.e. you'll win back less than 50% of your river bet.

Check-call

Originally posted by kavboj84
This logic is flawed. You don't consider the whole subtree, ...

It is not unusual that Kavboj has problems with logic. There are multiple threads illustrating this. I also know that it is totally pointless trying to explain anything logic related to him because he is a crank. There is no flaw in my logic. The choice is between check-calling and bet-folding, not between bet-3bet-call-bet-3betcall and check-folding. I do point that out.

There may be flaws in my estimates of peoples ranges. There is no flaw i my logic.

No, I can be convinced, you just need a good reasoning. I'm not one who just simply believes in something that can be understood, I need whys and hows. But choosing a set premises that prove your hypothesis and ignoring those that might disprove it is surely not a good reasoning. Otherwise you could choose only those possibilities when you win a hand and you could prove that you can only win in poker with any2 cards. You do the same, you ignore when it goes x-x, when you bet and your opponent folds, when you bet and he raises you only think in two outcomes b/f and x/c, and this at the current level of my understanding can't be right.

But anyway if this is what you want wont hold you back, you have to right to do whatever you want to.

No Kavboj84

You cannot be convinced. A couple of posts up I explained in such detail that a monkey could understand. Yet, I was fairly certain that you would reply along the lines "your logic is flawed". It is just your behavioral pattern. It is nor he first time you have been involved in logic related disputes (in particular vs Boomer and me), and you have always not been able to read anyone else's opinion and understand it. You have also been wrong every time.

I encounter cranks, not on a daily basis, but perhaps on a weekly basis. I have no problem in recognizing them. You are one.

calm down this is about poker not the individual.