The dark tunnel bet

[donger]

In the first chapter of HOH2, Dan Harrington describes a beginner mistake that he calls 'the dark tunnel bluff,' which consists of making smallish bets with a hand that you have no idea is good or not. He compares this to the hackneyed horror movie scenario of a character wandering down a dark tunnel, having no idea of the carnage that awaits. This is more true for NLHE, but people still make bets like these in limit:

I've been wondering about a play I see bad-to-average players make that's similar, and that's leading a scarecard with a hand that actually has some showdown value.

For example, a full ring game,
2 players limp, I raise on the button with AKo.

Flop comes down K84r. First limper leads, second calls, I raise.

Turn is an 8 that completes the rainbow. First limper donks again, second calls, I call (probably should have raised).

River is a blank, ck ck, bet call call, the flop and turn donker shows 99.

What's he thinking? Is there any merit to this strategy? It seems retarded to me, but I'm always open to learning things from all players's styles, even those I consider to be bad.

Much like cold calling a steal from the SB, this is one that I just don't get. Can anybody shed any insight on when a play like this could be correct?

I don't think its ever correct unless you are SURE that your opponent will lay down a better hand(which is unlikely). I raise his turn donk 100% of the time. Most players would C/R the turn if they made trips.

[ZZZ]

I think it's an OK play if he didn't fully trust your flop raise and he was planning to fold to a turn raise. It's a fairly cheap way of finding out for sure if you're beat. People that do this regularly rarely fold to a turn raise however.

ZZZ