[esbesb]

Praying Mantis:

I really appreciate the information contained in the second half of your reply. This is obvious, now that I think about it, but I had never really focused on it before. You are right -- he is more likely to have an A or a K than a Q because he had to have something to call that preflop raise with and it is more likely to be a higher card. This is a good point that I had not seen discused before.

I am still not sure I agree that checking is no good. You are looking at a host of options, none of which are ideal. If he has a Q you are screwed. But, he may also have a pocket pair lower than JJ, and may have hands as varied as AJ, KJ or lots of other hands since you describe him as a loose player.

The problem is, if you bet the pot and he has a Q, you have a big problem and just lost a ton of chips. Betting less than the pot is another possibility, but, frankly, I think this communicates almost as much weakness as checking because now he knows that not only do you probably not have a Queen, but that you are AFRAID of him. Checking, to me, at least puts the possibility of a check-raise in his mind. You may, after all, have KK or AA. It is also a big pot, so even though he may be tempted to bluff you with AK, AJ, Ax, etc., he has to risk a lot of chips to do that (though admittedly only 1/4 his stack). In my (limited) experience, a lot of people in his situation (assuming he doesn't have a Queen) won't put down 1K chips on a bluff. You can bet he's trying to steal the pot if he bets, say 1/2 the pot or less.

On the other hand, he's a loose player and may be just the type to bet the pot without a Queen. But . . . unless you want to risk a lot of money, I am just suggesting that a check is not any worse of an option than the others.