[Sparks]

[ QUOTE ]
However, it is your read. If we go with that and you were *that* sure he had AT, then it's much, much better to fold the turn than it is to call the turn and fold the river.

As it plays out, you must call the river. Not only do you have a very strong hand that I think you didn't play strongly enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure. Although I had a strong read when he bet the turn, a fold didn't seem right, with a card to come. And a raise would be the worst play. Why would I raise into a hand that has me beat, with a non-threatening board? He either calls, then checks (or bets) the river, or, he 3-bets me right there, and I have to lay it down without a chance of catching on the river. Regardless, I did call the turn, and when he bets the river, I now have a very strong read (90%), which is the whole point of this post. He simply has to have AT. There is no other hand that would make much sense.

As geormet has said, it's probably just the difference between live and online play. Online, I agree, it's a quick call on the river. But this live situation is a very specific hand-reading exercise.

While there are several analyses of AQ, and "donk turn bet" (whatever that is) and such, I'm more of the school of simplicity, seeing the hand and the betting for what it is, and not over-thinking it. I raised PF and on the flop, and this typical player bet into me on the turn. I'm almost surely beat, and that's the end of it. A call on the river is incorrect. To recommend calling the river is just a game theory answer, and is missing, I think, the nature of this particular hand. Still, the responses now with their analysis (even if I disagree), are helpful. Thanks.

Sparks