[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your decision to check and call all the way on this flop agaisnt this specific opponent is dead on. There is no way you can even think about folding TT on this board vs this player, and I see no reason to get aggressive at any stage in this hand since you want to encourage him to bet worse hands than you, and you certaintly dont want to play back at him since you will probably spend more money and still have no idea where you stand in this hand. Against these type of players it is usually best to just try to get to the showdown as cheaply as possible when you have a mediocre hand. On the river, you should definitely check and call. If your opponent doesnt have a hand he will still bet this river hoping you do not have a diamond and will fold. Betting this river is only correct if you feel you can safely fold to a raise and this opponent certaintly doesnt match that description. Checking and calling the river is best since the villain will still bet many hands you can beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post, I like your reasoning...Except - I think you are overlooking the fact that aggressive opponents will raise this river with hands you have beat; sometimes as a bluff and sometimes because they think they have the best hand. I think this happens more than a negligable amount of the time and induced me to lean toward bet/calling over check/calling. When playing against aggressive players I like to give them every opportunity to bluff/semi-bluff me when I know I am not folding. What do you think?

- Jags

[/ QUOTE ]
You have a good point here, and one thing's for sure, if the hero does bet the river he must call if the villain raises and im certain the villain will be bluffraising a fair amount of time. But the problem I have with this line is there is going to be a significant percentage of time when the villain has complete nothing and will fold if the hero bets, whereas if the hero checks the villain may well bet again seeing that scary board as a bluffing opportunity. Every time the hero bets and the villain folds, the hero loses that big bet that the villain may have bluffed off. I do realize that some of these lost big bets will be made up for when the hero induces the villain to bluff raise, but i am not confident that the villain will bluff raise enough to make betting this river correct especially when you also consider there will be a significant amount of time when the hero puts in 2BB on the river with the worst hand which takes away from the profitabilty of inducing the bluff raise. I understand that if the villain reaches a certain bluffraising frequency, then at some point, betting the river makes more money than checking and calling, but I believe that this percentage has to be pretty large to make this so.