In Defense of a (Bad) Hero Fold

Slowplaying the nuts into oblivion

One of the most publicized hands of the 2025 WSOP Main Event was Vladimir Nex’s river fold of 76 on a board of 854JJ with no possible flush against Sebastian Schulze’s continued aggression. Many members of my poker community have ridiculed the fold with amazement and derision. “How is this even possible?” one friend inquired. “How did this Nex guy make it this far? Did he misread his hand? Misread the board?”

“Worst fold of the year,” another friend announced.

“Worst play of ME history?” another asked.

In his excellent Punt of the Day Substack, Sam Greenwood called it “one of the worst folds in the history of the Main Event”, giving it a 98/100 rating.

As a notoriously squeamish player with a fetish for hero folds, I felt compelled to defend poor Mr. Nex. His fold was reprehensible, but I believe much of its criticism has been hyperbolic. I’m going to try to break down what Nex was thinking, why he settled on fold, and why this laydown was merely poor.

The hand began innocuously, with table chip leader Schulze opening a suited king from the cutoff and Nex defending his big blind with a connector. Standard, expected actions for these stacks (107 BBs for Schulze, 59 for Nex).

On the flop, Nex checked and Schulze bet 290k into the pot of 440k (66%). Both these actions are notable. This is a flop Nex could choose to lead: it hits his range harder than that of a cutoff opener. But Schulze could/should be raising very wide in this configuration, might possess all the two pairs with his suited 85, 54 and 84s, and maintains a huge overpair advantage, so Nex’s check is expected. Schulze’s bet is immediately conspicuous, as he launched 2/3 pot into an 8 high rainbow board. Most players who don’t reside in SolverLand are betting 1/3 or less with here with most holdings, and often checking this one back against the BB. Right away, Schulze is signifying strength. At home we can see he merely held backdoor draws, but if I was sitting at the table, Schulze’s bet would peak interest.

Nex chose to slowplay his straight and called. I probably would have raised in his seat, as I would often checkraise bluffing hands like 96cc and Q6hh in this spot. I would also like to raise hands like K8 and 99 for value and protection, even in the face of a larger continuation bet from Schulze. In any case, Nex’s call is reasonable, representing hands like 65, 64 and A6dd. There are a lot of these hands, so it makes sense to protect a large calling range with the nuts.

Nex checked the turn, which gave Schulze a flush draw and high card to represent. Schulze fired 720k into 1,040,000, 69% of the pot. Holding advantages of position, chips and betting lead, this is an expected semibluff. It’s a bet that should fold out the likes of 5-X and 4-X along with most A-X including those which paired. It puts great pressure on 8-X and pair+gutshot hands, which could opt to fold. Schulze’s sizing is standardish at this juncture.

With a flush draw now appearing along with some higher straight draws, most players would raise the turn with the nut straight. This would also allow Nex to get all his chips into the pot, either by calling a potential jam from Schulze or betting them himself on most rivers. But Nex opted to continue slowplaying, concealing his hand strength like Johnny Chan to end the 1988 WSOP.

The river paired the jack, meaning Nex could now lose to any flopped set along with JJ, J8, J5 and J4. This is partly why Nex’s turn slowplay was surprising. A rivered heart, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, T, J or Q would castrate Nex (remove his nuts). This Jc was a solid river for Nex, who continued with another check.

Holding king high on the river, Schulze thought for two minutes before firing a massive final barrel. He bet 3.15m into the 2.46m pot (128% pot). Overbets always garner scrutiny, and this one came on Day 6 of the Main when most players are leaning into pot control. Believing his opponent’s range consisted mostly of pair+draw combos like 87 and 5hXh, Schulze’s bluff was wisely executed. He paved the way for this river overbet bluff with his hefty flop and turn bets. There was nothing about Schulze’s line that suggested weakness, and he underscored his strong representation with a gargantuan river bet. The only issue with his river overbet is that it was no longer congruent with pocket pair holdings that might choose the sizings he used on the flop and turn. Commentator Brent Hanks suggested Schulze could take this line with pocket aces. This might be possible, but if I was sitting at the table I would assume Schulze had polarized to a full house, three jacks or bluff.

Everyone watching assumed Nex would quickly flick in a call. Instead, he contemplated until a clock was called, released his hand with a few seconds left and ignited a firestorm of criticism.

Little of that criticism seems to acknowledge the heft of Schulze’s bets. He didn’t merely bet-bet-bet. His flop and river bets were uncommonly large, sandwiching a meaty turn bet. Nex found more interpretation in these sizings than most of the armchair commentators lambasting his laydown. Nex was misled, but his digestion of Schulze’s sizings should be commended, not disdained. Schulze was representing a very strong hand, one that would usually beat a straight on the river.

But not always. Could he have taken this approach with trip jacks? I don’t see why not. He could also have the same flopped straight. One heuristic poker players use to determine river decisions is “Can I beat any value?” In this case, Nex still could. Usually we call on the river if we can beat perceived value.

But he may have thought Schulze would only use this river sizing with a full house or bluff. Nex may have thought that Schulze, like most players, would be unbalanced towards great hands on an overbet. He may have thought that Schulze chose 3.1m instead of all-in to allow Nex to maintain a few crumbs if he called and lost, a sizing implicating a desire to be called. He may have thought (wrongly) that Schulze wouldn’t have c-bet this flop that hard without a set. Nex didn’t block any full houses. If you contextualize Schulze’s range in this manner, it becomes frightening. Kudos to Nex for assessing the gravity of Schulze’s line.

The biggest problem with Nex’s fold is that he concealed the strength of his hand throughout the hand. He’d made no indication that he held a monster. His hand appeared weakish, dominated by pair + draw holdings that failed to improve on the river. If he pictured his range through Schulze’s eyes, he could not have folded the river. It appears he was overly fixated on the question of “What does my opponent have?”, undervaluing the question of “What does it look like I have?” Nex could be holding many hands that could comfortably handle large flop and turn bets before retreating on the river. One would expect a skilled Euro such as Schulze to bluff appropriately. Nex played trapper throughout the hand, then scurried off without collecting his pelts. It was a disastrous fold, but not as egregious as many have suggested. I’d argue Schulze made an equally bad fold later in the same tournament.