I think people tend to overemphasize the importance of card removal in their decision making. It’s indeed a valuable tool but doesn’t apply in all situations. One example is this live hand I witnessed some time ago between two players I would describe as competent regs.
~200bb effective stacks
EP Open
LP (KsQs) 3bet
BB (AsAh) 4bet
EP Fold
LP Call
Flop: 9s8s3h
BB: Bet ~35% pot
LP: Call
Turn: 2c
BB: Bet ~35% pot
LP: Call
River: 4s
BB: Bet ~10% pot
LP: All in +100% pot
BB: Call
In this case LP can use card removal to his advantage and make an absolutely brilliant river shove. LP correctly reads the small river bet as a blocker and not an induction bet. Given the preflop action and BB’s position it’s very unlikely he has AsXs. But if he has AA with a spade BB may hero call his overbet shove.
For BB card removal is going to bite him in the rear. Having the nut blocker seems like a good thing. He can safely block bet the river and get a cheap showdown, LP being unlikely to raise even if he rivered a flush. But what can he do about LP’s polarizing shove? If he relies upon card removal he’ll have a hard time folding. So many combinations of flushes are removed because of BB’s ace blocker. What value hands can LP be shoving with? The backdoor straight completes but A5 and 56 are somewhat unlikely here. And would he shove a straight when the flush completes? It seems the logical conclusion is LP has decided to bluff, possibly pouncing on the perceived weakness of the small river bet.
After a great deal of thought BB eventually calls and loses, revealing his hand and explaining he called because of the As blocker.
“Blockers are for fish” someone at the table remarks.