Your action?

[ILOVEPOKER929]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bump for results.

[/ QUOTE ]

The turn was checked through, river was a 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] The BB bet and showed Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] for the straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

JT,

Do you feel that your Turn check was correct? Why or why not?

Was there any bias to your River calls are were you simply calling any bet. In practice I would likely call like you, but when I analyzed the River decisions from the standpoint of a Turn check, very few cards that we did not improve on were safe, or even necessary to call on from a bluff stopping standpoint.

My analysis was based on a hand range geared more towards low-mid pairs, Mid to Low suited connectors, and several A, K, Q, J-little combinations which I assumed based on his Pre-flop and Flop play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Nfinity, I saw your discussion with Microbob, and I just wanted to add that like Microbob, I too think that this is one of those situations where if you check the turn you have to call all rivers. My reasoning behind this aproach is that the tag will call this flop with any flush draw, and if we check the turn, most tags are bluffing the river with their nonshowdown hands close to 100% of the time becuz they know that your turn check in this exact spot can easily be a "give up" check as opposed to a "showdown" check.

So given the nature of the board, there are many lesser hands the tag can have to get to the river with since all he needs is a heart in his hand to call the flop. And given the dynamic I mentioned above most tags are going to be bluffing close to 100% of the time with their nonshowdown hands.

I think thats why in this particular case, when we check the turn with this specific hand, we have to call all rivers unless we have a read that says not to.