[chaosuk]

I reckon you dismiss bet-call too easily here; either way I don't much differentiate between either bet-call or bet fold, simply because the river raise seems so unlikely here. It's this unlikeliness that can mislead us, we may find his actions to be a bluff-raise to be only 1 in 100, but if he only raises 1 in 20? This is obvious Bayesian logic (& and I'm not suggesting you are rationalising '1 in 6 bluff' any other way here), but on the fly these unlikely events can fool us so easily. I'd be very surprised to see our, presumably non-creative opponent, raise the river but call the turn with an top pair over-pair, pre-river set. There are so many cards that scupper the delayed (river) raise for this guy. I think I'd like even money 55 fron this non-agg oppo, though he might not even be there with it, under which suspicion I'd simply have to call. That all said, overall it makes precious little differnece between bet-call and bet fold, because the latter is so unlikely.

Also, I'd find check-calling quite hard, and so even check-folding was the slightly better play over, say, bet-folding, I'd still prefer the latter becasue I know that I'd misplay the check fold strategy (i.e. check-call) too often, the cost of which must be a consdieration when you determine which strategy to deploy.

Off for a couple of days, but I'll look in later.

regards

chaos