[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
Given that you checked the flop after a pfr, UTG obliged and bet, MP was nice enough to fold, how's about a c/r to try and get it HU? This of course only applies if you are intent on continuing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, in retrospect, everything went down perfectly for a CR, and it seems way better than calling. I messed up.

[ QUOTE ]
1) Your pfr from the SB after 2 limpers

[/ QUOTE ]
I should have mentioned MP was 60 vpip. Their range is so wide enough KQ could dominate them 15+ ways. (BB was 51 vpip FYI.) I actually don't normally raise KQo out of the SB, but against limpers who could easily have K4, it seemed more attractive.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Your lack of continuation bet

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, like I said, the board had so much draw potential, I didn't expect any fold equity from leading out. But I am compelled to continue after the flop with two overs and two backdoor draws. I think checking and seeing the action is OK, rather than risking paying two bets needlessly.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Your river call (possible overcall) on a double paired 3 flush board?

[/ QUOTE ]
The three-flush didn't concern me. If UTG is betting a draw on the flop, it's probably not a backdoor draw. And I don't expect BB would check a flush on the river for fear of it being checked behind. The fact that it was double-paired meant to me in a bayesian sense, it had an increased unlikelihood of having hit my oppponents. I thought UTG would have a busted draw a signifigant percentage of the time, and that the nut-no-ace,no-pair had alot of showdown equity against one opponent here. But the presence of BB had me questioning my play and prompted this post. That BB had never raised made it seem unlikely he had a jack, and the double pairedness made is less likely he was calling down with a 4 or 8, but still, it seemed dubious at best.