[Allday Everyday]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing 6 max against aggros, I've noticed a trend. This is also something that seems to permeate 2+2.

Everyone loves to put opponents on draws. Especially if those opponents are seen as aggressive (I play a 30/20/2.2 style, so I'm quite aggressive).

Because of this, people love to "charge" those draws by betting and raising, even with hands that may not warrant it. This results in massive action on the flop and turn to make me "pay" for that flush draw/straight draw that I "obviously" have.

By the river, however, the draw either got there, or it didnt. There is no more "charging." Thus, the range of hands that a player will raise with becomes much narrower...in fact, many opponents wont raise the river without close to the nuts, regardless of how aggressive their stats make them appear. They will still bet if you show weakness, but will not often raise.

This river CR is simply a method of insuring that 2 bets go in on the river, when all too often in my experience, a river lead will result in only 1.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course I agree that opponents are more likely to reraise and 'make you pay' when there are draws showing. I also think this is important to remember and I like the concept. However, when we check-raise-cap the flop, then bet-reraise the turn I think the generic 35/25/2.5 UTG raiser has (somewhere along the line) stopped putting you on a possible draw and his continued aggression seems to speak more of his hand strength. As such I think you have misapplied the idea above.

In addition, in this hand, one of the possible draws actually hit the river. edit - Oh hang on, is this an argument for checking the river (a bet will give him more reason to call)? Well, we don't want it to get checked through...

As such I think you have made a mistake by check-raising the river. I really think he usually has a supreme hand and we should bet-reraise him on the somewhat blank river with what is usually a better or splitting hand.

However, what you wrote in white seems to be some form of weak initial evidence for what you were saying and I think a river check-raise is indeed correct if we could see his actual holding in this hand.