am i crazy for thinking that i shouldn't raise here?

[MATT111]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
plz to be raising somewhere, probably turn. definitely river. its not like you can't raise-fold this, you know.

[/ QUOTE ]


if i could've raise-folded i would've. i don't think it's possible

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree with this. No way we can get away from the hand vs. this villain if we choose to raise the river.

[Morrek]

[ QUOTE ]
am i crazy

[/ QUOTE ]

yes

[Josh.]

i think this is a lot closer than people are giving it credit for. first off, i had a read, and that is that he was more likely to fire at me if i showed weakness than play back at my bets. he had 9 high, so i think that's enough to at least justify how i played it through the river check. even if you don't agree that it's optimal, it's at least close and not wtf horrible

when he bets, it's 144 into 144. he has 300 behind. so it's all-in or call. i'm pot stuck if i make it less, so i should just jam if that's what i want to do. mainly what i'm concerned with is that he bet pot twice for the first time in our many hands together. usually when someone jams the bet pot button it's a bluff or a huge hand. he could definitely have 44 or 22, but i think QJ is unlikely. he definitely can have A3o, 63s, and QQ though. so when he calls my shove, i think i win the pot less than the requisite 50%

[luckychewy]

sometimes i wonder if it's better to deviate from what would seem standard(bet turn or c/r turn) because u think the guys range is so primarily air. and if that is your read, as long as you don't think he is the type to go crazy and put in even more action if you raise than if you call, i don't mind the turn play. it's really situational though, and i would almost certainly get more $ in on the river despite you thinking he probably has air because your hand doesn't look as strong as it is and he might convince himself into calling w/ something stupid, plus you don't have to show down your hand if he has air which is always good. i also think once u get here w/ this line vs. some guys leading river is okay.

[Triumph36]

the only problem i see with playing it like that is that he gets to see your cards - garland advocates betting on rivers just so you don't get to showdown

i mean he could have A3 here and he probably never has a set

[trplthrt]

I think my head asploded

I just don't see how we would ever not raise the turn and if we didn't how we are not raising the river for value in this spot.

[Melchiades]

[ QUOTE ]
he probably never has a set

[/ QUOTE ]
I could definitely see this kind of villain show up with QQ here.

[teddyFBI]

[ QUOTE ]
i think this is a lot closer than people are giving it credit for. first off, i had a read, and that is that he was more likely to fire at me if i showed weakness than play back at my bets. he had 9 high, so i think that's enough to at least justify how i played it through the river check.

[/ QUOTE ]

Results-oriented much?
Jam the river all day long. If he's as terrible as u say, he might even look u up w/ a pair or two, putting u on a missed flush draw, which ur check-calling could have indicated.

[trplthrt]

You know what, I rescind my comment above.. I still stand by an almost always raise the turn thought.. but if we did not, somehow I can see justifying a safe play on end. I guess it is aiiyight.

[catcher193]

I can't ever stop myself from pulling the trigger on this river.