Re: you guys are ugly
 

seems like standard b/f to me

Re: you guys are ugly
 

i quite like river bet $175. it help gets him on tilt when he calls an obvious value bet.

betting $350 or so and then folding sucks imo, given he may be in '[censored] it mode' and shove AJ.

Re: you guys are ugly
 

[ QUOTE ]
i quite like river bet $175. it help gets him on tilt when he calls an obvious value bet.

betting $350 or so and then folding sucks imo, given he may be in '[censored] it mode' and shove AJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no way after playing the flop like that that he'd be looking to get it in with any worse hand, especially JJ.

Re: you guys are ugly
 

check-call

Re: you guys are ugly
 

i like a psb on the turn and bet $400 on the river.

Re: you guys are ugly
 

I don't think c/c is that bad, i think there's a good argument that he vbets much more than he calls. In fact i will say c/c for that reason.

Re: you guys are ugly
 

b/f > c/f > c/c > b/c here IMO given we have no reason this guy is sick enough to bluff shove over a river bet, and not betting this river for value here seems pretty damn bad to me. I agree that if we check this river c/f is better than c/c. Sure he can value bet an A, but he's checking behind with an A a lot also, as well as any Kx/Qx type hand, so our hand obviously fares pretty badly vs his value betting range here, and there's very few hands he can show up with that bluff the river here. Given how underrepped our hand is here, checking will leave us lost when he bets, and we lose a lot of value from bluffcatcher type hands that can look us up but will never bet for value when checked to, and when we c/f here, we are sometimes folding the best hand when villain is value betting, which can't be good.

Re: you guys are ugly
 

check call.

Re: you guys are ugly
 

480, call, easy game

Re: you guys are ugly
 

[ QUOTE ]
Did you ever think that maybe......he was bluffing.

[/ QUOTE ]

then u would c/c - NOT c/r.