[Nietzsche]

Thanks for the analysis, Catt. The idea behind the turn check was to let him catch a second best hand and/or induce a bluff due to my weakness. I thought he would fold lots of hands on the turn and I did not want that to happen since there was so little chance he would catch up if behind at this point. Lots of passives peel the flop with nothing even on boards like this and then fold the turn unimproved.

I agree with you that this turn check only works if I can comfortably let it go if he 3-bets the river. I don't have access to the hand and can't remember the opponent (but I suspect he is looser than your stats suggest because I don't always isolate with K9o) but that must have been my plan. Only I didn't follow through on it (leak, leak!!), perhaps I thought he used it to represent a runner runner flush which I didn't believe or that there was a slight chance this was a K that I would split the pot with (only A kicker wouldn't). If he is a passive the call is questionable, maybe even a significant mistake, but sometimes I do see passives pull crazy 3-bet stunts on the river where they never do on the flop or turn. Do you agree or is this me trying to defend a defenseless position [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]
Do you prefer to simply call his bet on the river? Or do you also raise and then fold to a 3-bet?

This was a great hand to post, Catt, because I do sometimes put myself in these wierd positions where I overplay a marginal hand, get played back at and refuse to believe when the pot has become decent size on the river (due to my overplaying the hand!). It does look slightly like a late session hand though [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]