[MNpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe she'll call me with AQ that would have checked behind or bluff raise me and I get 2 bets. Isn't that obvious? Then again sometimes I'll have to put in 1 or 2 bets when I could have seen the showdown and lost...but still I think my line is best.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it was a value bet?

I just don't see that working out often enough to be worthwhile.

'Sorry for all the edits trying to organize my thoughts'

*Note: none of these are 100%
If she has AQ: (what you were hoping for)
I would expect her to check if you check. And fold (you gain nothing) or bluff raise if you bet (you gain 2 bets).

If she has AK: (again good for you)
I would expect her to check if you check. And fold (you gain nothing) or call (you gain 1 bet) or bluff raise if you bet (you gain 2 bets).

On ANY other hand (bad for you)
I think you lose an extra bet. Against me you probably wouldn't have but she (in this case) correctly read your hand and made what I think was a value bet. -- Maybe Liz was trying to push you off something like a medium pair but I think she was value betting. Of course unless we talk to her we will never know.

What hands can you put her on that you beat here other than AK or AQ possibly KQ?

I think you took an 'optimistic' view of her holding. She could have a decent size range of hands here and your play only works in a very small sample of them (IMO) AND you have to believe she will bluff raise instead of bluffing or checking it down to make it worthwhile even in that small sample.

Interesting discussion. I am curious to hear what you think Liz had, what you think Liz thought you thought she had, and how you think she would have acted in those scenarios.