KK, do I hate money?

He talked during hands, but he was particularly chatty this hand. It made me think he wanted a call as well. Or did I overthink that too?

Let's go over this hand from the beginning. UTG (36/1/3 over 100 hands) limps UTG. At this point, he has something along the lines of [AA,22];[AK,A2];[KQ,KT];[QJ,QT];[JT,54].

/*I am a new poster here, and the above interval notation is probably foreign. The idea is that it's a compact way of expressing hand distributions. What you do is count down from the first card in the first hand to the first card in the second hand while simultaneously doing it for the second card. [JT,65], for example, represents the set {JT,T9,98,87,76,65,54}.*/

This hand distribution accounts for 34.8% of possible holdings, and while it is not exact (it's tough to get an EXACT preflop distribution afterall), it is good enough to work with. After UTG limps and gets a caller, you raise to $3. Action folds to UTG who then calls. You state that he is capable of limping with anything...is he capable of calling a substantial raise with anything?

That brings us to the flop. The only postflop analysis seen in this thread has to do with the villain's chat. Chat (especially online) is really tough to decipher. You are much better off simply knowing the betting patterns of your opponents. Thus, how has the villain played so far? Is he a tricky player who has semi bluffed draws on the turn? Is he a calling station who only shows aggression when he has monster hands?

Against tricky, aggressive players, you are forced to reraise all-in on the turn here, unless you have a stong feeling that he has you beaten. Another interesting line of play against an aggressive opponent is to not even bet the turn in the first place, with the intention of calling his bet on the river. If you think that doing this will slow your opponent down in future hands, it's a great play to get you cheaper rivers in future drawing situations. If not, getting all the chips in the middle on the turn is the way to go against an aggressive player.

If your opponent is more passive, or unknown (you've played 100 hands against him though so you better know something), then, his likely holdings are AJ, JJ, 99, or something with a 4 in it. His action on the flop indicates a possible flush draw as well, but the check raise on the turn eliminates that option for a passive or unknown player. Betting the turn is the right thing to do, and once you are check-raised, you have to lay down. There is virtually nothing you beat against a checkraise here from a typical opponent here except for AJ and A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]...calling stations will call a near pot-sized bet on a paired board with an ace. My hunch is that he turned a full house with 99 or slowplayed a 4.

In summary, go back over the top against a known LAG. Else, you should fold confidently.

On a side note, I agree with the other posters who said that calling the turn means that you are implicitely calling the river. However, simply calling a check-raise on the turn will occasionally induce the check-raiser to check the river; calling the check-raise on the turn could indicate some real strength to him.

[djoyce003]

anyone that is 36/1 is playing pretty much all pairs, broadways and SC's. That's how i'd read him. He's also not raising anything other than AA pretty much. My honest opinion is that he has 1 of 3 hands. He's got a 4 because he played a suited ace like A4, maybe a hand like 34 or 45, or QQ. I can't see him playing a naked jack this way with something like AJ. My decision would be based on my read here and what I thought his chat meant....usually when people are talking like this saying "lets see what you have" he probably wants a call here so he's pretty sure he's ahead. I'm probably folding the turn, but calling isn't awful and you might be ahead of QQ.

[bryan4967]

[ QUOTE ]
With no reads, I push the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]