[Jimmy The Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
Grunch. I've played my last several thousand hands at the party "beginner" .50/1 tables, so I'm not used to playing against "very good" (or even reasonable) players, so take this with a grain of salt . . .

[ QUOTE ]

A) The villian is a typical ho-hum player (not fishy but not great).


[/ QUOTE ]
Raise for value. If we get 3-bet, we can re-evaluate (would villan 3-bet PF with lowish suited connectors?).

[ QUOTE ]

B) The villian is very good. At least as good as you are and views you as an overly tight (maybe weak) TAG.


[/ QUOTE ]
I would raise here again. I actually think there is a better chance that this guy has two pair or something, since he might have been setting up a play on the flop. On the other hand, a 3-bet might be a bluff to push a weak-tight player off the flop. So I would call a 3-bet and check/call the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same disclaimers, since I've been playing similarly unsophisticated players; but the more I think about it, the more I think that a turn raise is the right move regardless of Villain's quality.

Would Villain have 3-bet preflop with A7/A6/A4? 44/66? 85? In a 9-handed game, now heads-up with the previous raiser? I can see a maniac doing this, but neither description of Villain fits the maniac mold. With three rags on the board, and TPTK in our hand, I've got to think we're in the lead.

One step further... what is he putting us on? We raised preflop, but didn't cap; so we had a decent hand, but one that needed to improve. We didn't show any postflop aggression, which furthers his perspective that we're not holding an ace. He views us as weak-tight, so he's not concerned that we would have raised with A7/66/etc.

I can see the rationale for calling the turn and possibly raising the river. But I don't see him throwing his hand away; he'll suspect that we have an ace, but that suspicion is probably not strong enough to make him fold.