dunno

[stripsqueez]

the pre-flop isnt completely auto but its what i do early - completers are barely above limpers on the food chain

i checked the turn for all the reasons you would check the turn - its horrible to get raised - in addition to the fact that i have to call the raise i fold to a river bet unimproved with discomfort - i have showdown stuff - king high no kicker isnt your usual showdown stuff but it was when i raised pre-flop and not much has changed

a normal player probably shouldnt bluff at this river because a normal player would rightly be worried that a flop raiser isnt very likely to fold - reality is however that the bo-bo bluff is common so that goes in my pro column

mostly i posted this hand because i've been convincing myself ever since it happened that its a decent thing - i dont like not betting the turn but cant see the arguments that i should

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Alobar]

Im in the bet turn camp. Someone weak enough to complete in the SB is peeling that flop with near any 2 cards. Altho this is a pretty crappy turn card in terms of giving him something to c/r bluff with, straight draw and a flush draw out there now, plus a paired board, so I definately can see good arguments for checking the turn. Typically tho, I think that at mid limits people who are weak enough to open complete the SB arent the aggresive type that c/r bluff with draws.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
You thought your K-high was likely best, but you chose to give him a free card--I don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he only thought his K-high was good more than 20% of the time on the river. not that i think this line is best, as i'd prefer to bet the turn, but this line really isn't bad all, and might be best if this opponent was overly aggressive.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
i have showdown stuff - king high no kicker isnt your usual showdown stuff but it was when i raised pre-flop and not much has changed


[/ QUOTE ]

K-high on a paired board is better than A-high on nonpaired board showdown wise, isn't it?

[NLSoldier]

I like it.

[sthief09]

the nice thing about having a flush draw in these situations is that if you have the best hand he only has 4 outs to catch up instead of 6. what that does is make him bluffing much more profitable for you since you're giving up a smaller chunk of the pot by allowing a free card. so I like that part. but without a read we don't know how often he'll bluff the river, and there are some better hands that might fold and some worse hands that might call

[meow_meow]

Unless villain is one of those types that habitually cr's the turn on a draw or a bluff, I like betting the turn and checking behind on the river.

[Surfbullet]

I'd fold the river. If he's passive enough to complete in the SB then I would worry that he is not bluffing at the river enough to make a call profitable in this relatively small pot.

Surf

[paco]

With no read I think this is a bet the turn/fold to CR, check behind on river, or check turn and fold to river bet UI. Nothing wrong with playing a little conservatively here having just sat down IMO. I think its close though.

Edit: whoops, obvioulsy not folding to turn CR with flush draw.
I think alobar is right in that completers are not usually the ones going for a big semibluff c/r on turn, yet that board is perfect for someone who does. After reading the other posters I think a turn bet is superior.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
If he's passive enough to complete in the SB then I would worry that he is not bluffing at the river enough to make a call profitable in this relatively small pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

passive players still bluff sometimes though, and if he's passive, then he'll be valuebetting his weaker hands less, so the bluff ratio would still be good enough to call. it would take a specific read to make folding correct on the river given how the hand played out, and i don't think him open-completing from SB is a strong enough read.