so anyway at the river, he's just a couple of seconds in acting. (this is relevant to the hand but not to the real point I am getting to. stay with me here). So it looks to me like he has to think about something.
He had limped pf before, so I had no way to put him on any particular hand.
flop, he's clearly got something - either a draw or a hand. He dutifully checks into me at the turn, and calls straight away. So he's more likely on a draw, but who knows. He is still interested in staying around.
At the river, as I said he pauses, and for longer than if he simply missed his flush draw which would be an auto-check. The K makes QJ nuts, or AK that beats me (is he really passive?), or KT or K9 twopairs. All possible hands. So I thought I was likely being set up for a check-raise. So I check behind.
Villain tables QJo nuts and his hand is Good.
And I laugh at the screen and say "ha! just as I predicted" and believe for 3 seconds I'm a fantastic online player.
(If you haven't already guessed, this post is a tribute to the
Diablo <-> BarronVangorToth thread in the magazine.)
So the real question is, am I being results oriented? Obviously I would normally bet there but my read was good. So I checked.
But Villain could have been drinking his coffee with A6 or QT! The trouble with results are that they might reinforce a duff instinct. I genuinely don't know the position.
I guess the answer is to be scrupulous about recording such reads and see if actions (where contrary to normal tag play) based on such 'reads' are profitable. (although when it means folding where calling would normally be correct, I'm not gonna know....)
I won't be writing to the magazine with it, although to credit BVGT he certainly generated a debate. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]