“No player is capable of folding a full house on any betting round, regardless of the size of the bet.”

Baluga Theorem

“You should strongly re-evaluate the strength of one-pair hands in the face of a raise on the turn.”

An extension of Baluga's theorem would be applicable in this hand. I first heard about that while watching xflixx's video on reevaluating his A3 2-pair against a reraise on the turn. Eventually he lost against the A4 2-pair. The difference between that hand and my hand though is that mine was a clear fold. The stack was too deep to call hoping for a chopped pot alone. My mistake was assuming that villain was just another micro donk who had the same fullhouse as mine. It was just a terrible autoclick on my part without even pausing to look at the board itself. He could very well have a straight flush or quads minimum. Any decent thinking player would not have missed that. Let my fish move be a lesson to everyone. ALWAYS PAY ATTENTION. Stop and think hard on every street especially if it involves your entire buy-in. When faced with a similar situation never forget to ask the questions,

What hand/s would he be doing this with?

What possible outcomes are there?

Is my remaining stack worth risking for the pot?

Is this call +EV in the long run?

Will this call help me get laid or pay the rent?

Here are also some helpful guidelines when dealing with microvillains:

1) They're never good enough to bluff all-in on the river. They almost always have the nuts so folding if you dont have it yourself is +EV in the long run. 

2) They will call 3 barrels because they always assume you're full of smelly substance. 90% of the population has ZERO fold equity so value bet them to death.

3) Money not lost is at least equal to or better than potential money gained on unclear speculation. It's a bankroll to get more money on a clearer situation.