Value bet or check behind?

[Big_Jim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Villian hits one of his "outs" and shoves thinking he has the best of it?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think he is check/raising with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

From my experience the check/raise part is pretty typical of these opponents. They hit their hand and say, "well, he's been aggressive all the way through. Why not let him be aggressive one more time so I can get some extra $$ out of it?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't play these games... but this doesn't seem that typical to me.

I could be wrong.

[cbloom]

Jim's 100% right, this should usually be a bet unless you have a strong read that he's made the flush. You'll get called by Tx, AJ, etc.

It is very thin, because he can have KQ, flush, house, etc.

The frequent reasoning on this forum that "you shouldn't bet because you'll puke if he raises" is so wrong it's got to stop. Passive opponent on this board only raises if you're beat, so there's no fear in that. You just fold if he check-raises.

The only question is whether he has a worse hand > 50% of the time that he doesn't fold. I think it's very very thin. You'd have to count the hands and probability they were played this way.

[the machine]

so if we dont know how many hands we beat that he doesnt fold and if its over about 50% then we should be checking behind. if its that thin we can easily check behind and lose the small amunt we might have gained. because the times hes better we lose the money we bet and the times hes worse and folds we gain nothing and we only win when hes strong enough to call a with a hand that we beat. this isnt a strategy i would implement often but in this situation with your given explination you basically showed how a check behind is better becaue we dont know if he calls with a worse hand over 50% of the time

[Misanthrope]

[ QUOTE ]
Hero is obsessed with value-betting

[/ QUOTE ]
Too much time lurking in the high stakes forum.