FANTASTIC COMMENT, thanks.

That's why I post. I get some solid critique on my thought process. Having said that, I am obviously going to ignore your feedback.

Or rather... rationalize why what I said didn't mean what you think it said but means I'm just thinking on a higher level yada yada. Yeah, that one. And then being "right" my ego will ignore the feedback.

No, you're right. In some ways shockingly right. And in some ways I still think there is value in the process. I did mean that KsKx will be perceived to be a part of the $5 bet rather than that I would actually bet $5. With the nuts? Are you nuts? Bet the amount I think has most chance of getting fold with the nuts - no way.

I'm not particularly comfortable with considering it betting for information, but I guess you're actually right. Actually I consider it also something like bluffing with the best hand.

I did deliberate overstate the illogical impulses in the original post (hate check/call, hate check/fold, hate shoving) because.. I was trapping. I was trying to get readers to miss the bet/fold option so I could inflate my ego further later on by coming in and saying see how clever I am - how could you have missed it! Or in rationalization mode, I was trying to test how resilient the readers were to accepting only the options I gave them rather than ask if I had considered all the options. Whatever.

I don't think shoving here is good per se. However, I do think this villain will pounce on perceived weakness and shove his entire range if I check. And I will call of my stack. You are correct in pointing out that I have a huge EV gap in my head for the money realised from winning occasionally against the weaker parts of his range when I check/call. I still regret each additional $ that goes in on the river against his whole range in the sense that I get less out of each additional $ going in than the villain and check/check would be my ideal river action, which unfortunately I cannot dictate.

It would be funny after all my posturing if people would do my exercise and prove that my beloved bet/fold small is never higher EV than simply check/calling.

Anyway - "You think his betting range is up to 50% air, but you don't want to check/call" Well, even in my initial post I think I said that I cannot fold. If I check, I am calling. I hate it because I lose on each additional $ that goes in, but there is enough dead money to justify the call. Easily imo.

I CAN'T put him on a range that is skewed towards value. I think my blocker argument is rock solid. Air aside (and there is sure to be some, even without spades) there's a pretty good number of two pair, pair+straight draw, pair+overcard type hands where either one or both of the spades of that card value is accounted for. Enough that with air I definitely get perilously close to the 30% that makes calling mandatory if I check.

"Then you suggest that if you had the nuts you would lead small. To me that is symptomatic of a player who is trying to avoid a negative emotional response to their actions rather than one who is trying to maximise profit"

Ok, here is the promised rationalisation section. Not with the nuts, no. Or maybe even sometimes with the nuts if I think that is the best bet size to maximise my EV. I TRY to think through what the EV of the different bet sizes are. Which parts of his range will call different bet sizes - whether I am at the strong or weak end of my perceived range etc. I don't like emotional response and I may occasionally pick a lower EV, lower variance to reduce the chance of emotional response. I could rationalise that it's an EV decision because the negative EV of going on tilt over an emotional response may cost me more than avoiding the emotional response.

Station is something I rarely am. I'm much more often a spew monkey and looking stupid that way. My ego doesn't like being stupid, but sometimes it's just the +EV way. I try.

Sometimes I make weak tight folds. Not too terrible often, sometimes for image and sometimes for tilt prevention. I tend to acknowledge them to myself by mumbling "And now we're making a weak tight fold here because..."

You've pegged some of my flaws pretty well - I'm working on them. But they sometimes shine through in my wording.