PP 100-200 QQ hand.

[Steve Giufre]

I really dont think he needs to pay off a checkraise here. I almost always do in these spots, but after the guy caps preflop, and bets the flop and turn, he is almost always gonna have something he wants to showdown. I cant see a thinking player checkraising a big pair on the river there. Maybe a busted draw, but not a big pair. He also probably thinks TSP has an ace given the way he has played the hand, which makes him even less likely to CR with JJ 1010 88, whatever. I agree its player dependant but I think it would have been a fold had he bet agaist this guy.

[mmcd]

i would have folded on the turn with these hands making TT an impossible winner if i make it to the river and bet. maybe my folds are weaktight?

That's why I think a tough player will be either checkraising or checkfolding this sort of hand on the river.

With all the people in this thread advocating betting and folding a checkraise, I think a bluff checkraise will work at least the ~1/7 times it needs to to be profitable.

TSP had it right in his results post: If you're going to bet this river you must call the checkraise.

[TStoneMBD]

i agree that a checkraise should show profit and therefore calling the checkraise seems manditory, which makes me think that betting is not profitable if TT is going to fold a good percentage of the time.

[obi---one]

if you check here people will know you are a panzy and will be able to safely fold more hands against you, decreasing you profitability greatly in the long run. especially in this game where it is the same players, playing day in and day out. where player specific plays become more important than the standard, or "correct" way to play a hand. IMO a bet and call a checkraise is still more profitable than a check here. and about calling a checkraise, there are some players that i would never call a checkraise and some that i would always call a checkraise there, that is just player dependent. but not betting there is leaving money on the table.