A flush would be a good bluff catcher after the river on this double-paired board.

No doubt a lot depends on the players. Like chillrob, I suspect, my player base does not habitually spaz off their chips, so a fold is definitely in order. A least in hold'em. In the dealer's choice game, there might be some spazzing.

This. Our bluff catcher needs to be even stronger with the player behind nearly calling out of turn.

Why bet KK to fold the river to a c/r on turn?
You have 0 hand to 3bet the turn if you get c/r if you only call with a flush on turn.
So you are saying basically you have a weak range and your hand is no better than AHigh flush draw.
You should play it has a bluff catcher and not bet the turn.

Why bb would not c/r a set on the flop ...

You're right that I usually would have 3-bet a flush on the turn so I probably won't have one on the river given this exact action. But that is because the only way I would play a hand like this is because I am pretty sure I am beat on the turn but have to call because I have a big draw. You shouldn't really need to have any bluff catchers in a protected 3-way pot. Calling two big bets with just a bluff catcher is a lot to pay to catch what should be a tiny range of bluffs.

I don't really get this question...of course he might have had a set on the flop and decided not to check raise it...but he also might have had a flush. He might have had a straight. He might have had a pair of 4s which is now trips. There are just so many ways we could be beat here.

I guess it's because most players here are loose passive and generally don't spaz out post flop. They definitely call pre with a ton of trash but I don't typically see them play it aggressive post. With trash they know they're behind and they usually wanna call down and try to make 2P or catch a backdoor or something. I don't usually see people xr turn from BB with hands like 75o or A2 here. Even with a hand like black 8s they'll just call because they know they're likely beat but there's still some chance they could be good so they want to get to showdown as cheaply as possible.

I might be giving these people too much credit but from what I've seen, a turn xr is almost never a bluff or semibluff or a hand like red 9s here. I still pay off but I can only remember one time where i was shown a naked bluff.

If he raises, it's an easy fold. If he calls, he's probably giving you an overlay with a worse hand than yours. What do you think he's calling with? (And if you say that it can only be a straight or better, I think you're out of your mind.)

If you think you're in that much trouble when check-raised, why bother betting the turn? You've got a good turn check and river bluff-catcher if you're in that bad of shape.

Also, the paired card is a 4 on the turn, and a 2 on the river. I'd look at this hand quite differently if it were T97T7. The hand range you're giving villain is just waaaaaay too tight.

Actually, if players played like this, the game would be super easy. Your opponents would all be basically "rational weak" players, and you would be able to read all their hands pretty much exactly.

So you've never, ever seen a player limp a hand like QQ preflop in the hopes of getting a safe flop, but then on a wet flop they wanted to wait for the turn to put in a raise? Never?

Keep in mind that yes we should be exploitatively folding in these games, but sometimes they just don't have enough value hands and you're getting a sick price. Are we even sure this guy would bet a baby flush here? Are we looking at nothing but boats? He probably would've had to xr the turn with a 4, which is a little out of character too as a lot of loose passives are terrified of the flush.

Might want to try reading the action in the hand correctly before you criticize others' hand-reading.

Of course there is a slight chance the guy is a spaz and could be doing this with a worse hand. But it shouldn't take long to figure out those kinds of players. Without a read this guy is one of those, this line is generally only taken with a very strong hand. And even in one of the very rare cases that we have the aggressor beat, we may not have the 3rd guy beat. I have played hands similar to this before where I decided to pay off the spaz but was beaten by the third player.

It would be very silly not to bet the turn when you most likely have the best hand but it is vulnerable and there are two other players drawing to beat it. Playing a hand as a bluff-catcher only makes sense in a headsup pot. But after someone shows such strength, you have more info; you have to use the info.

Not sure what you're saying here - do you really mean you think the BB might not check-raise trips or a small flush, yet you want to give him a good amount of bluffs? That doesn't make much sense to me. Trips, a straight, and lots of flushes look like value combos that could easily be played in this way.

What? You mean BB calling instead of 3-betting? It makes no difference in the description of the thought process. In fact, it probably increases the probability that it would happen as players like 3-betting from BB even less than they like open-raising.

What's I'm describing is not spazzing. It's logical (though wrong) play by a somewhat timid player. The pattern I've described is not something I'm making up. Some players actually think this way. They even tell you that after you get to know them. ("I don't like raising QQ preflop because I'd rather see a safe flop before getting invested.") The flop check-call is just an extension of that idea.

What hand range are you giving the third player? This is sounding very MUBS-y. While it's true you might not have the third guy beat, it's far more likely that you do.

This is about probability, not possibility.

I'm sure you have, because I have them, too. I would like to suggest that you're falling victim to the availability heuristic, which is that your ability to remember the times that third player had you beat is outweighing all the times that you've gotten overcalled by some random donk hand. Yes, we've all seen times that some guy called down with the nuts and never once bet it. But how often do you think the third guy calling down only has a straight or better? There's way more junk he could have been hanging around with. For all you know, he's calling with A-high because he doesn't want to get bluffed out of a big pot when he's got the nut-kicker.

This is sounding typical weak-tight from back in the early/mid 2000s live poker scene (back in the day when Winning Low Limit Hold'em by Lee Jones was somewhat fresh).They only ever check-raise the turn with the nuts... except when they don't have it, but you never find out because you're always folding.

You're finding out this time.

Actually it makes perfect sense. I've seen plenty of villains who, because they're so averse to value betting, are actually over-bluffy (as in, he'd bet because "only way to win the hand", but look down at the T8ss he slowplayed flop and be scared). When you remove value and don't remove bluffs, you by nature become bluff heavy.

So... I have to admit that I don't know what WG and BG mean. Did I miss that description somewhere?

I am guessing white guy and black guy but honestly didn't really read the thread.