[KowCiller]

I don't want to be one of those people who posts asking for advice and then turns around and justifies their play despite what everyone says but...

Here's the first thing. I said he was 70/4 (30 hands) which relates to preflop. I never said anything about his post flop play besides "relatively unknown", so to all those who are saying "do x, y, z vs a passive opponent" I don't know how you're making that logical leap.

Secondly, betting this flop is not mandatory as most of you say, and I'm kind of disappointed that this point isn't more obvious. Bet flop, check turn, call river is the "standard." It's also a very open book line to anyone with any NL experience. If villain checkraises my flop bet here (which I might make with a WIDE range of hands based on PF action), I'm in a tough spot.

As for the results, I went ahead and paid him off his 74o on the river with a call. Against a relative unknown it's probably a fold. After watching him for the next hour, I started feeling less and less bad about my river call. Whatever.

I encourage you guys to think about how faulty the logic is to imply "bet all streets so if he plays back you can make a good fold."

I wonder if others have noticed, but it seems like villains will often make bigger bets than normal after they miss a check raise. The full pot bet on the turn, and the huge bet on the river after I checked behind the flop. At the time I thought he was just trying to push me off a QQ-88 type hand (i think he will do this a good % of the time) however what I should have realized is that he would bet a lot less on the river to accomplish that goal. I think his big river bet was to try to "catch up ground" on his missed flop checkraise.

Thanks for reading,

KoW