[DeeJ]

Thanks Barron.

Button shows 44 and HHIG. Fish had K5o.

The problem with check-calling as I did is you never know where you are, as you said. But taggy rocks don't limp on the button with a big variety of hands, and those that they do are often small pairs. So I played scared poker and basically took a way ahead/way behind view.

I'd pretty much ruled out A3 b/c he'd likely raise that pf. So he either had a mid suited connector like 78/89/9T/TJ but as you get into the face cards they are more raises than limps. In fact he could actually raise with 78 for all I knew (not enough hands).

I figured I'd need to put 2 bets in on the turn if Button had a set (same, if less likely, a straight) to find out, and I could probably get to the river for the same 2 bets in any case on the possibility Button was firing barrels with 78/55/89. The problem with that line of thinking is that Button probably knows that fish is a fish and won't be firing on the river (if it's a likely overcard) with a small pair or missed draw if there are 2 overcards to his hand.

Fish could have hit his 5 but still lost to Button's trips, but fish would actually hit his 8 outs 1/6 of the time as he had an oesd. So (results oriented reasoning) check-raising would be good against fish but suck against Button.... I'm a poor third despite having fish "dominated"! Given that I was drawing near dead after the flop the whole hand sucked. Like being stuck in Alcatraz, actually.

don't like the whole thing much [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] as I can't see how I could lose less in this scenario and I'm not sure Button's range of hands wins me any more if I bet into my TPTK K on the turn and he folds a worse hand. He sure isn't folding a better hand.