Re: 3-bet this river?
 

I don't lead the flop here in this hand. A passive player will usually have you beat here, or another AK. You will be raised.

It sounds super weak, but I really think I just check-call all the way down. I would expect you to be behind almost all of his hands here.

Given your line though, you certainly cannot 3-bet the river because he is going to cap it 9/10 times there.

Re: 3-bet this river?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Given your line though, you certainly cannot 3-bet the river because he is going to cap it 9/10 times there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it a good thing to have Wild Villain cap in light of Hero having a strong hand and being against Wild Villain?

Re: 3-bet this river?
 

While there isn't direct evidence villian bets/raises with weak made hands, given the 3 examples of calling / overcalling with obvious losers, I agree that getting the river capped here against this player is a good thing.

Re: 3-bet this river?
 

[ QUOTE ]
UTG is extremely loose passive post-flop.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it a good thing to have Wild Villain cap in light of Hero having a strong hand and being against Wild Villain?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never taken these two to mean the same thing. Why do you think Villain is wild? His play here is perfectly consistant with the way a loose-passive would play QQ-AA or AK

Re: 3-bet this river?
 

I agree loose-passive does not equal wild, and there isn't evidence provided by OP on what villian bets/raises with.

However the 3 hands provided by OP in the middle of this thread do seem to indicate villian is a moran and thus I don't fear his cap as much as vs 'normal' players.

Re: 3-bet this river?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree loose-passive does not equal wild, and there isn't evidence provided by OP on what villian bets/raises with.

However the 3 hands provided by OP in the middle of this thread do seem to indicate villian is a moran and thus I don't fear his cap as much as vs 'normal' players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I didn't read the thread before this discussion. Looking at those hands though, I don't think we can make any inferences about what it means when he is capping hands. He has only shown that he is VERY loose-passive, which makes me even more scared when he shows aggression.

Re: 3-bet this river?
 

The hands shown certainly make me inclinded to value bet villian with more marginal hands than typically needed.

Without agression reads from villian, I can see just calling the river, as we don't know what he's going to war with, especially as you say he's quite Loose-Passive. If he's in as many hands as this sample represents, we should have some idea what he's raising here with pretty shortly for future decisions.

Re: 3-bet this river?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
UTG is extremely loose passive post-flop.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it a good thing to have Wild Villain cap in light of Hero having a strong hand and being against Wild Villain?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never taken these two to mean the same thing. Why do you think Villain is wild? His play here is perfectly consistant with the way a loose-passive would play QQ-AA or AK

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for the delayed response. I echo Aces' comments. Villain appears wild from the specific hand examples given. I agree if he was a passive player, I would not 3-bet the river.

Re: 3-bet this river?
 

After only calling you on the turn (and not raising you), but then waking up with a raise on the river, I'd expect to be shown anything from a set to the flush. There are certainly hands that you beat here, but I'd be more inclined to call this rather than 3-bet it.

I agree, you should have either led the flop or C/R'd it to get a feel for where you're at in this hand. You say this guy is passive, so any sign of aggression here would put up some warning signs for me.

- thing85 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

Re: 3-bet this river?
 

My read of him as passive was primarily based on those pots where he had nothing (majority of the time) he was a check-calling machine. But that's cause he had nothing. Turns out he'll bet if he has anything.