[ QUOTE ]
BB has the makings of a possible maniac. His previous action in the same position (open-capping A6s from the BB into a multi-way pot, and then betting all streets including the river when his A hit) showed me that he is capable of tricky play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Capping from the BB then leading all the way up to, and including, betting ace-nokicker is aggressive, sure. Is it maniacal? Harder question. If he flopped his draw, then his postflop play is not too bizarre. Preflop, while an error, Im not entirely convinced this means he is a "maniac". If his intention had been to build a big pot, but check-fold an unhelpful flop, it's not a totally crazy plan. In any event, your later reads suggest a totally different kind of maniac.

[ QUOTE ]
I chose to cap pre-flop to try to take the initiative in the hand,

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no objection to your preflop cap, particularly given the suitedness. (You characterized it as a "marginal" decision, and I dont think its marginal at all). However having taken the initiative, your flop play was totally inconsistent. You had the opportunity to raise the flop and signal overpair. If he plays back at you, you're behind almost 100% of the time. If he slows down, you could well be ahead, in which case it might make sense to look him up with ace high. Not raising the flop is a big error compared to the calldown approach you took.

[ QUOTE ]
The flop of T65 rainbow is a great flop for BB to bluff at, but it is also a good flop for my hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You and I must have taken different hand reading classes, because given the preflop action, I think this is an awful board to bluff at, and I think it is a craptacular flop for your hand. You have 6 outs, where aces are not clean, and no backdoor flush draw.

[ QUOTE ]
When BB donks into the field after I capped pre-flop he most likely is either on a draw,

[/ QUOTE ]

This board is utterly drawless, unless you're now going to claim that he might have three-bet from the BB with 78s or 34s. Of course you can't give me this read based on your previous experience of seeing him cap A6s from the BB. Youre talking a different kind of maniac in order to 3 bet a small suited connector from the big blind. Bottom line here is that he is not on a draw, and if you're saying things like "He could be drawing" when the flop comes like it did, you're just trying to justify LAGging it up. He either has a pair, or AK, or maybe AQ the vast majority of the time.

[ QUOTE ]
or has over cards (I believe he would be the type to check-raise here otherwise).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is total crap, TT. You've indicated that you had only 54 hands on this guy, so there's no way you can have this precise of a read.

[ QUOTE ]
Raising the flop would be a mistake, it would inflate the pot to 20 SB at least, giving any opponent the odds to call down with a gutshot,

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about? There are no gutshots on the board unless somebody is playing exactly 78 or 9T.

If you're talking about gutshots that appear on the turn, even if you just call the flop, at the turn there will be 8.5BBs in the pot. Against any turn bet, the players will be getting 9.5:1 to call, which is pretty close as is with implied odds for gutshots to call the turn. Any player overcalling the turn will be getting 10.5:1 to call. Thus, as a practical matter, the price for gutshots on the turn was created by the preflop action. So whether you raise the flop or not has really minimal value to whether you create the odds on the turn for gutshots to call.

The reason to raise the flop, as others have said, is that you define your hand as a top pair/overpair hand, and for the price of 2 SBs you completely define the BBs hand. If he plays back at you, he's telling you he can beat TP and/or he has AK. If he slows down, you get a free turn, and another chance to spike an A or Q.

[ QUOTE ]
UTG folds the turn, which simplifies the decision process. The T pairing is actually good for my hand if BB has overcards or is on a draw, now the decision is to either fold, call down or raise for a free showdown. Since we are heads up I chose to call since there is a chance I may still hold the best hand. Folding the turn unimproved here is not a decision I would make considering who the opponent is, and its also not a good place for a free showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree that your hand becomes "stronger" once the top card pairs and the UTG players folds (or it least it becomes more WA/WB), the problem with taking the line you did is that since you didn't define your hand on the flop, you dont know whether you're up against AK, KK, 88, KJ, or whatever. Youre ahead of some hands, behind others but drawing live, and crushed by yet others.

Furthermore, if you were doing a hand distribution, I think you'd conclude that based on the villain's preflop and flop action, you're likely behind. You are

- behind 22-44 and 88-99 and JJ but drawing live (36 combos)
- crushed against AA, KK, QQ, TT, 66, 55 (19 combos)
- crushed against anybody holding a broadway T (AT,KT,QT,JT) (28 combos)
- reverse dominated by A6 and A5 (18 combos)
- dominated by AK (12 combos)

You are ahead of

- A7-A9, AJ (48 combos)
- KQ, KJ (32 combos)

Thus, you are most likely behind in 113 combos (but drawing live 31%), and ahead of 80 combos. (My combo math might have some errors, since Im not double checking it, but it is directionally right).

Even this distribution is optimistic, since frankly the play you've described by the BB is not very consistent with how a LAG would play the hands youre ahead of, but it is consistent with how he'd play the hands you're behind. Bottom line: you made no effort at hand reading, or if you did, you made lots of mistakes.

In summary, TT, this post relies entirely on superhuman "reads" to justify atypical play. (Reads that, by the way, are impossible given that you have only 54 hands on villain.)

You wrote "Standard?" as the title to this thread, and I'd suggest that your play is anything but standard. Like Barron's articles in the magazines, when you rely on these superhuman reads, there is very little instructional value to the discussion. You're basically using ex post justification for bizarre, some might say indefensible, play.

The standard play here would be to raise the flop and/or call the flop and fold the turn.

If you're going to reply to my detailed response to your justification, please take the time to use math and analysis, and not pronouncements on high based on "reads". TYVM.