[sean c]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think he is free rolling you? Would he ever bet here with less than an ace?

[/ QUOTE ]

He would almost always bet a 9/2pair/set here. He never bets less than 2 pair here. There's a very slim chance he bets J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]x [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then i think you have to raise. I would call a 3-bet see the river and go from there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are wrong. I will elaborate once some more have shared their views/reasoning. Maybe somebody could even do some MATH!!!.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong on the raise or calling the 3-bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, well this didn't generate as much discussion as I'd hoped, but oh well. I think that the proper play is to call the turn and raise the (non-spade/pairing) river.

I'm going to assume that we are either raising the turn or raising the river. Calling down here is wrong IMO.

If he has Ax with no spade, then it doesn't matter what line we take...3 or 4 bets are going in regardless (4 if he decides to 3bet, 3 if he calls the raise)

If he has Ax with a spade, then by making sure there is a non-spade river we save a bet.

If he has 2 pair, we get 3 bets out of him whether we raise now or on the river, so by waiting to see if the board pairs we only put in 2 bets when we would get sucked out on.

If he has 9x with a spade, we still get the same number of bets when ahead, and put in less when behind.

There are probably more scenarios, but basically what it bois down to is that when we are ahead/tied we have the chance to make the same number of bets regardless of when we raise, but by waiting for the river, we only put in the 3rd bet when one of his outs does not come in. I am open to this being wrong, so please argue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course your assuming he bets the river also with his 2 pair/9 and only 3-bets you with at least an ace.