I'm the first one to admit this is a crazy call

[tubasteve]

I feel like you lost to 22 and are just being results oriented. You can't get away. If my "read" on this post is right, his terrible play got paid off when in essence, he rivered a 5-outer for your stack that committed you to the pot.

I could be way wrong though.

Does that 5-outer thing even make sense?

EDIT: I was way wrong. NH.

[seke2]

And that's the beauty of reads. Here, your read got you a huge profit when by all rights you should have won a small pot.

[flopking]

[ QUOTE ]
he had KQo

[/ QUOTE ]

brag post then?

the real question is if you could have called without pairing your sidecard....

[illegit]

River call seems very easy to me.

I don't complete 93o in the SB here though.

[JohnFR]

I think the key is, if a T,8,6,5,4,2 had come on the river I would have lead the river for about half pot hoping to shut him down from doing anything stupid like bluffing. I don't know if those cards had come I lead, and then he raised if I could have called though, I may have folded.

No the only reason I posted this was because I caught some pretty good crap for the call in the tourney, even though I felt that I made the right play(actually like 3 or 4 gave me crap, and then the only other observent player who had called one of this guys bluffs earlier was telling them he would have called with just top pair in this case.)

[dumbndumb]

From what little I know, it seems that a good read doesn't just depend on knowing that you opponent will make unjustified bets when weak, but also knowing how your opponent will play when he DOES have a hand. It seems like you had a read on how he plays when he likes his hand, and this wasn't it. In that case, I like the call.