Originally Posted by Likminutz
Just wondering the reasoning behind the statement...he does seem passive so while he's not checking for pot control neccessarily I can see him checking.
Maybe he has some understanding of wa/wb, or is that giving him too much credit?
Also wanted to know what made you take this line against a player that leans on the side of a calling station.
Well this guy c-bets 60% of the time, and he's too passive & generally bad to know what BA/WB is. Guys like this see top pair, and bet. If he was a 20/18/3.5 TAG that 3-bet more often, I'd be more inclined to give him credit for such a play. Plus, this board isn't all that happy for top pair type hands, so I may get him to fold a jack (JT/KJ) anyways (if he was a decent tag).
And against passive/peely players, you can't just bluff them away with 1 barrel. You really need to be prepared to fire 2-3, and it takes a certain feel for how weak their range is. I'm almost certain this guy had at least a gutshot, and I figure TT, 88, AT are his most likely holdings. A guy this passive isn't betting his draws. So I certainly wasn't checking the river when all the draws missed, when draws (that have pairs) make up a good portion of his range imo.
So what made me take this line is that he didn't c-bet (so that excludes a lot of top pair+ hands), and the board was fairly scary, and there were a lot of hands that I could have that would go for 3 streets on a board of this texture. I barreled the turn since the Q is an overcard to the jack, and it hits a range that bets this flop fairly well. And I think the river was a pretty easy bet even with ace high for showdown value since most of his draws have pairs of some sort that he can fold.
It also helps that the CO in this hand is a super nit. If he had called, and an ace hit on the turn, I was still check/folding.
I also never said my 3-barrel worked