QQ CO 3-bet pot, river play?

Let's assume villain is not capable of bluffing the river since we play on NL2 where tendency is not to bluf on the river except if you're a massive idiot or very good like we are (Let's suppose).

Villain's valuebetting range in my point of view is : QQ-JJ,99,AdAs,AdAc,AsAc,KdKs,KdKc,KsKc,AJs,KJs,AhKh,AhTh. Assuming he would bet his overpairs with a heart on the turn.
Against that range we have 21% equity, being a bit optimistic about his range.
87c + 50c + the 50c we have to call make that we need 26% equity to call in a profitable way. Do we have that? No.
So fold. As played most people, including myself, would probably make the call. But it's interesting to analyse.

Against a range pure with valuebets we just don't have the equity to call. Which is quit sick considering we seem to have a big amount of showdown value.

Originally posted by ovatsuG21

Originally posted by advancedTN1984
I don't know. Calling is in my case many times minus ev.

Folding is always 0ev.

If you analise the money you invested as dead money your folding ev will always be zero BUT that has nothing to do with your river calling winrate that counts the money from previous streets.

It seems I don't get your point. For example. If I filter on when I call a bet on the river and we saw the showdown, than someone would expect that we are always better off folding if the line is minus 0 and someone is doing a great job if the line is above 0.

So to summarize. If i get in this hand 26% equity on a call. And I would be good 27% of the times. How would my river line look like? I suppose that it is now slightly above 0. The river is quite a black or white situation. That's a slight difference with pre-flop 3-betting.

Originally posted by Trommelboy
Let's assume villain is not capable of bluffing the river since we play on NL2 where tendency is not to bluf on the river except if you're a massive idiot or very good like we are (Let's suppose).

Villain's valuebetting range in my point of view is : QQ-JJ,99,AdAs,AdAc,AsAc,KdKs,KdKc,KsKc,AJs,KJs,AhKh,AhTh. Assuming he would bet his overpairs with a heart on the turn.
Against that range we have 21% equity, being a bit optimistic about his range.
87c + 50c + the 50c we have to call make that we need 26% equity to call in a profitable way. Do we have that? No.
So fold. As played most people, including myself, would probably make the call. But it's interesting to analyse.

Against a range pure with valuebets we just don't have the equity to call. Which is quit sick considering we seem to have a big amount of showdown value.

I figured out that a nit or tagfish is what I suppose this player is, is only 3-betting 3.5% of his hands. I also figured out that the average player at nl2 is betting at least twice with their big hands and 1 time with their bluffs.

So I doubt he has in his range 99, AJs, KJs, AhTh. It might be that some of that is included some of the time. I guess your range seems fairly accurate.

@ovatsuG21
I'll quite possibly sound rude, but rudeness is not intended: I read your two posts here. They indicate that you need to brush up on the concepts. Your last post in isolation isn't too far off from being correct, but it is alarming when you talk about "money you invested".

As a matter of practice, the baseline in EV-calculations when you are about to make a decision is always set at zero for a fold. Other options are compared to this baseline. (Mathematically, the baseline could be set at something else, like your stack before the hand. But the decision is independent of the baseline. Chosing other baselines than the stated one is just a source of confusion, especially if you (like you did in the first post) use two different baselines in the same calculation.)

Money in the pot belongs to the pot, and who put it there is immaterial. Its size will be one (of several) decisive factor in your decision.