[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
If he put the OP on a flush draw/thought A-high was good, why didn't he bet the turn and take the free showdown? Checking behind the turn with what you believe to be the best, but very vulnerable hand in order to induce a river bluff from a potential 15-out hand is just terrible poker. The only A high hands he has a decent chance of getting a call from are busted nut flush draws.

Also, it's not just JJ that will value bet a blank river if checked to here, it's JJ, TT, 99, A8, K8, J8 and any other 8 if he's tenacious.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that he puts him on a flush draw exclusively. He mostly puts him on a pair and was hoping to catch an ace or a king. Now though, getting over 6:1 on the river call, he thinks, hey, maybe ace high is good. In the games I play, calling the river after the board draws have missed with ace-high is not just common, it's correct. A missed draw will frequently bluff the river after the turn goes check-check.

I agree with you that check-raising is interesting. You suggest though that you'll get called by an ace 30% of the time, meaning you only need to successfully check-raise JJ et al 15% of the time. I find two flaws in this logic. First, I think ace-high calls much more often than 30% of the time. Second, a check-raise only wins you 1 bet vs JJ, assuming he calls, not 2. Therefore, you must believe that gaining a bet from a hand like JJ is more likely than gaining a bet from the ace-high call.

Working in favor of the check is the occassional induced river bluff, but I think getting a call from ace-high outweighs these. I could be wrong.

good luck.
Eric