[dsaxton]

This hand is from a $10/$20 Stud game at the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City.

The table is playing very loose, particularly the seat to my immediate right who is the villain in this hand. He plays most starting hands, and will go to the river even with little chance of winning the pot. He's also shown a proclivity to slow-play his big hands, even when it is completely obvious what he has. After 3rd street, he has shown some aggressive tendencies and seems capable of bluffing / semi-bluffing when he thinks his opponent might fold, but will check his big hands to avoid the same result.

In this hand, the low card brings it in, another loose player limps with a 7 up, the aforementioned player limps with a 3 up, I opt just to limp with (8 5) 8, a 5 folds, a T limps, and we see 4th street. I catch an offsuit J, and everyone else catches rags except the seat to my right who catches a suited 4. I check and everyone else checks to the player to my right who bets, and I raise. Everyone folds but the original bettor who calls. On 5th street, I catch a blank while he pairs his doorcard and bets out. I think for a little bit and then fold. Should I have called down given his playing style? Usually when I'm in doubt in these situations I elect to fold so that I can't potentially compound a mistake, but I believe this was probably the wrong play against this guy.

It seems that the main justification for calling down is that this player could have any number of starting hands, and will probably bet his board on 4th street regardless of his hole cards. He doesn't fold, so his call of my raise means nothing. Given his contrary betting style, I think the likelihood of trips can be discounted since he bet 5th street, and there is no reason to given him credit for as much as a pair and a four flush. So, I think I'm folding a high equity hand a large portion of the time here.

Any thoughts?