Strange line and it happens 3 times

[HatesLosing]

[ QUOTE ]
3) played fine until the river. River is call > fold > big raise > ur raise. I think calling is better.

[/ QUOTE ]
I second the call on the river there. I don't think he is making a blocking bet a large enough % of the time to justify raising, and that raise has basically 0 fold equity against any hand that can have you beat.

[iceman5]

[ QUOTE ]
"This has been a horrific 13 buy in losing streak where every possible bad scenario has come up."

A 13 buy-in losing streak is something I would be very worried about. It seems more like bad play than the downside of variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said I wasnt worried? Ive posted more in the past week than I have for a long time and theres a reason for that. Ive been playing for 4 years. Ive had one 10 buy in losing streak and have never had another one worse than 4 (although I probably lose 4 about once a month).

During this streak, I would say that Ive lost
3 buy ins with bluffs that didnt work
2 buy ins tilted away
4 due to bad beats
and 4 due to tough situations / bad plays / impossible hands to get away from, like flush over flush or set over set

The frustration level is at an all time high, believe me.

By the way, he had TT in hand #3 and 2 outted me on the river. He mightve folded if I bet the turn, but I doubt it.

[HatesLosing]

[ QUOTE ]
The other guy played it like a moron in my opinion but made me freeze up and then 2 outted me.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's always likely that someone is a moron (heh), but he might not be as big a moron as you think and there may have at least been some reasoning behind what he was doing.

On the flop he may put you on a range of hands that include AK/AQ/AJ and AA - JJ as major possibilities (this isnt' the entire range, but he might be thinking that these hands together make up much more than 50% of your holdings). He thinks that if he bets and you have AK/AQ/AJ, you will just fold, but he thinks that you are aggressive enough heads up on the flop that you will bet at least 1/2 the pot or more when checked to. So maybe his "Plan A" was to check-raise and take your aggressive bet and be done with it.

Then when you called, his read may have been "oh crap... he has me beat almost all the time with that call", so he slows down and checks, hoping that you make a mistake with AA - JJ and let him see 5th for cheap with his big implied odds. It's important to note that he did NOT 2-out you on 5th, since he picked up a gutshot draw on the turn. 6 cards could have beat you, and if he puts you on an overpair that has him beat, you may just push him out if he bets into you, but maybe if he acts weak he can get to 5th if he beleives those implied odds are there.

Now you check behind him and while he's very happy to see the T, he goes "Huh? Maybe I misread him and didn't have big implied odds afterall? Maybe he was weak and did have the AK/AQ but refused to lay it down on the flop", so he makes a small bet.

[Kirkrrr]

I think you're reading too much into an isolated incident(-s) with the quads. Yes, I'll bet the turn majority of the time, but what I do on the river is completely opponent dependent, though a check behind would be my standard play. Or just shove all in with one pair if it's the right opponent.

I remember playing 50NL (as in .25-.50, just to clarify) a few months ago and all of a sudden, it's like my opponents got replaced by pros - they were pushing with draws, check-raising the turn big with air forcing me to make some tough laydowns (hey, I don't care if it's a $20 pot - it's MY pot [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ), and making all sorts of other moves unheard of for that game. But in the end it was just that - an aberration, an anomaly on an otherwise flat curve of standard 50NL play.
Done rambling.

Kirk