Here's one that I played much too passively last night--and not in accord with my "river project." I just couldn't really get my game clicking (bad run of cards, then was very tired and just not on top of things). Anyhow, here's the hand:

EP raises to $15 and gets 3 MP callers. I have KK in SB. Now, this guy has been raising an enormous amount of junk hands and will consistently raise any hand that I consider is playable. I had already decided that I was prepared to re-raise JJ-AA or AK against him.

So, I make it $60 to go. He calls, all others fold. $140 flop pot, and the flop comes J9rag.

I bet out $80, and he calls for a turn pot of $300. Turn another rag, and I decide to check. As I recall (interesting that my memory is bad on this hand--that's how bad I was playing), this also made 3 cards to the flush, but I did have the relevant K.

The main reason for my check here is indeed in the spirit of my "river project" post: I feel like it gives me more info about my opponent's hand than does a bet in a big pot like this. JJ and the flush are both scary. I suppose against this player I should have been a lot less worried about JJ, but it is a re-raised pot after all.

He bets $100. Basically, at this point, I know I'm ahead. The way he makes this bet just isn't JJ or the flush.

So, here's imo the bad play: I just flat call and check the river again (another blank), hoping he'll bluff with an inferior hand. The correct play imo is actually to put him in on the turn (after the $100, he only had $250 or so left, and I had him covered).

He showed JT and (one would think) would presumably have folded, but that's less the point. He still may have outs, and I'm convinced I'm ahead. And he might have called with TP being already in that deep.

I bet he calls another 100 on the river, but that line would be really confusing, check call the flush card and lead the river. It just looks yucky.

Yeah, I discussed this hand with another player at the table. My initial "mistake" analysis was that I should've bet the river.

But, as this other guy pointed out, if you're going to bet the river, why not bet now?

As I see it, the function of my check was to define my opponent's hand. The way he responded, I just don't think he has JJ or the flush, and to everything else I'm ahead (except AA, which he also doesn't have).

The only real difference in check-raising and betting out the river is that on the former, you don't give a free card. Well, if you have a hand so strong that you WANT him to improve, ok, give a freecard, but on this one, if he improves, I very likely AM beat. And, in point of fact, he does have 5 outs.

I also got too wrapped up in this "calling down the LAG" thing, which can be great sometimes, but I don't think you can be overly rigid in applying it.