[deaders]

[ QUOTE ]
i suppose the river is fine against most players who can't really hand read (not sure how good deaders can read hands). if deaders is one to just fold upon aggression on the river (ie. having a plan of bet folding with KQ or whatever) then sure, your play is fine.

but what are you really repping? wouldnt you conceivably raise all strong hands on the turn (ie. JJ, KT/etc)? you're repping like a backdoor flush and thats it...fairly narrow range imo. so it seems as if you're just raising blindly without thinking about ranges. does he look weak? sure. another reason why i don't really like deader's bet sizing on the river, i prefer him betting 38+ on the river and then folding to a raise (since his line/hand looks much stronger).

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty good analysis imo, I think he was fortunate that I had one of the very few hands that Im going to bet fold on the river. I didnt know who he was at the time and my read on him was a very straightforward, kinda nitty tag. My image was actually sLAG 26/21 or something at this table, but I found out afterwards that he doesnt use PAhud or anything. Basically once he called the turn he either had a J, or a diamond draw (maybe TT?), so I made a smallish valuebet trying to get a call from a J and I didnt have him pegged at all as someone who would turn a hand into a bluff there.

Once he raised, even though it seemed really suspicious, I felt I had to give him credit for the really narrow diamond range he was representing. I felt he should view me as a good player (I had made a few big river calls at this table earlier, but I guess he didnt notice) and I could easily turn up with a big hand there, so he would know Im not bet/folding often at all thus bluffing wouldnt really make sense.

So that was my reasoning, it may well be flawed so I would love to be corrected on it. At least this has made me think about my river bet sizing a bit more [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]