Originally Posted by StellarWind
P.S.: Nick, who cares about being 3-bet? It's not like you need to payoff. He expects you to have a big ace and he expects you to call. Your chance of being good after being 3-bet by this guy on a paired 3-flush board isn't worth mentioning.
You're probably right. But the river value raise followed by a fold to a 3-bet was never a specialty of mine. I usually didn't trust my judgment enough for that.
In this particular case (if I raised and got 3-bet), I'd probably start wondering how possible it was that my fishy opponent on whom I had a fuzzy read was a Level Zero hand reader in love with his worse trips. (I have played with those guys, although I doubt very many of them show up at Merge.) Or if I really went into the tank and was desperate for a reason to call, I might wonder if the aggressive play all around my opponent was frustrating him and if he had finally on this deal gotten something (turned top pair, rivered trips) with which to fight back. (It's possible that the phenomenon of a fish lashing back at aggression is not illustrated very plausibly by this hand because of the level of big-street aggression and because of the 3-flush board. But, generally, the phenomenon of a fish clumsily breaking out of his passive shell in apparent reaction to the aggression around him was something I was noticing more and more at the tables around the time of Black Friday.)
Maybe the possibility of getting 3-bet by an inferior hand is remote enough that the possibility doesn't add in any significant way to the cost of a river raise-fold. But the Level Zero player in me would look at his top trips and start having doubts.
In short, it would be a bigger mistake for me to raise the river in the posted hand than for you to do so since I would likely add to my mistake by calling a 3-bet if it came
. But at least I compensate a little bit for this leak by taking it into account before raising in the first place