5/10 too passive?

[pheasant tail (no 18)]

And how about this one?

UTG raises, UTG+1 calls, SB calls, I call in BB w/[ 7c, 8c ]

** Dealing Flop ** : [ 8d, 5c, Kh ]
SB check, I check, UTG checks, UTG+1 bets SB folds, Hero calls, UTG calls

** Dealing Turn ** : [ 8s ]
Hero checks, UTG checks, UTG+1 bets, I call, UTG folds

** Dealing River ** : [ 5s ]

I check, bet, raise, Call

You like? You hate?

PT

[MAxx]

i'll bite.

your relative posistion isnt great on the turn. a c/r with likely squeeze out utg and potentially UTG+1. a call allows your river play which is pretty good when it works.... but if it got checked through, what a tragedy that would have been (only picking up one BB after hitting trips).

what about leading turn... may get both to call which would be goot..... but potentially utg+1 to raise and then you 3bet and lead river.

[Alobar]

I lead the turn, the way the hand has played out, im not to sure if anyone really likes there hand that much, and it could get checked through. If someone wants to raise you, great, 3 bet them.

I would have been scared this river gets checked through, glad it worked out for you

[pheasant tail (no 18)]

[ QUOTE ]
what about leading turn... may get both to call which would be goot..... but potentially utg+1 to raise and then you 3bet and lead river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you may be right. I suppose that I was worried about losing UTG and would rather have a bet from him than scare them both out in case UTG+1 was bluffing. Pot was getting large-ish and I supposed that UTG+1 would bet no matter what on turn given UTG's passivity on flop.

River was similarly botched--but worked out well.

I'm not sure, theoretically, the best line, but I agree with you that it is better to give 'em a chance to make a huge mistake (by going for 3-bet) since they will so often ablige.

I very well may have gotten a call from UTG and a raise from UTG+1 had I led the turn.

Thanks,
PT