RESULTS
Some very good replies here. I posted this because I suspected I may have overplayed my hand here. I went with a very narrow range of villain's holdings here and that probably was not justified.
First, a word about my general read that villain was loose-passive. I suppose I should have been more specific in my OP that this was a fairly provisional and tentative read. Sometimes we have lots of data on soemone; sometimes we have lots of personal observations; sometimes we have both; and sometimes, as in this case, we ae trying to make a quick down and dirty judgment based on a few orbits. Often with a new player I think it is better to just go with an assumption that the player is "typical" for that limit and game uintil I have a decent sense as to their play (or stats from PT). Other times, if I have seen s afew showdowns form them, I try to make my best judgment as to where they fit in. That is what I did in this case, although it was based on only a half-dozen orbits or so and a few showdowns from my opponent. Based on that my provisional read is that he was on the loose-passive side. Still, I shoiuld have been more specific inmy OP the nature of my read.
Since I thought villain tended to be loose-passive I didn't see him a check-raising the turn as either a bluff or semi-bluff and figured I was behind. Thus, I thought that that deuce helped him. My thoughts were that he would have check-raised the flop if he had flopped two pair or a set. However, in retrospect I must admit that even a loose-passive type might wait to pop the turn with a big hand. Moreover, even if I was right that the deuce helped him he might have limped in with 22 and have me drawing dead. I did consider foldig the turn. In my mind I discounted 62 as a holding and (over)narrowed my read to K2 or 42s or 22 and called.
However, when the board paired fours I overreacted because I was so fixed on him having K2. But even given my prir assumptions he is about equally likely to have K2 as either 42 or 22 (hands that, of course, beat me) so raising has to be bad. I think the river now is a clear call but I agree now that the raise is bad.
On a final note, I understand the argument about folding to a three-bet if my original read was correct. I tend to agree. However this is the problem with reads thatare not rock-solid. Yes, I played a hand with a certain read but one that was suspect. In deciding to call for one more on the river do I need to reconsider that read or be more suspect of it given my pot odds to call. If my read was wrong I might fold the best hand here. Of course, that wrong (or at least exaggerated read) may have caused me to make errors on prior streets. But does that mean I should fold now. I think that Evan (and others) are right that if he was a true loose-passive he wouldn't reraise the river with a worse hand and I should fold. But how strong was that read really notwithstanding my earlier decisons. The fact is that it was based ona few orbits and showdowns. Getting about 14.5:1 to call I could not see folding here without knowig this player better, even though I now thought I was most likely paying off. I know this sounds like a weak rationalization for a bad call (it kind of sounds that way to me) but I also thin there is some sense here. Facing the last bet on the river I understood that I may have misplayed the hand earlier, but I also thought that I was likely good 1 out of 15 times with Kings up and good kicker given how little I knew about my opponent. I am curious as to what other people think about htis given my further explanation and background in this post.
FWIW, villain had K2o and MHIG. Thanks to everyone for the excellent advice.
|