8/16 half kill. Game has been playing absolutely wild but the three drunk dudes driving the action have gotten up to take about their 701st shot so we are 6 handed.

One fold and I have 99 and raise. Only the BB defends. BB is pretty tight and passive.

Flop comes KK2 with a flush draw. He checks, I bet he raises. I call and see an offsuit Q on the turn. He bets and I call. River is an offsuit 4 and he checks. I think a second and check behind.

Should I betting river here? I very nearly did as I don't think he ever has a king.

River check is weird and feels like a busted draw. Maybe a very weak king and some poor judgement? (Seems unlikely.)

Is the BB so tight and passive that they wouldn't raise a FD on the flop? Otherwise I have no idea what raises the flop and checks the river.

Assuming it's not a K, it's unlikely they have TT+. Tight flush draw hands would be like A9s and worse (I'm assuming here that he won't 3-bet those but ATs would 3-bet preflop?) Maybe some other suited connectors? There are some Q's in their calling range (QJs, QTs), so there's that to consider.

I'm on the fence on the river bet. Bet fold is the line if you're sure this character doesn't bluff raise the busted draw. Otherwise this looks fine.

It seems like it could be a nice value bet. My problem is will a passive player be CRing this flop and betting two streets with a hand you beat and a hand he will now call with? Is he CRing Ace high or a smaller pair? I'd probably just check it back too. There are some players whom I play with were this would be an easy value bet.

Seems good to me. I think there is a higher chance he is being mubsy than he callls something we beat

I might get blasted for this but I would fold turn vs a TAP who xr flop and continued OTT. What hand are we beating? TAPs don't xr FDs. That's a LAG play. A TAP would just call down and try to hit. That's why they're tight and passive. Even if they have a FD they're likely going to have at least one over if not two, and therefore great equity vs 99. So you're either crushed or a slight fav, but never way ahead.

OTR I'd happily X back. What worse hand can call that takes villain's line? A TAP would never have 88. If he does then we need to revise our read on him. And even if he did he almost certainly wouldn't call, just like he wouldn't call with a busted FD.

I also don't think there's any reason why he can't have a hand like K5 and elect to xc rather than VB. I've seen this over and over again at 8/16 where they feel they're good OTF and OTT but freeze up OTR fearing you slowplayed AK KQ QQ KJ.

You make good points. You could take it a step further and say you should just fold on the flop if he never has a worse pair or a flush draw. It really depends on what flavor of passive we are dealing with. An 8/16 passive player is different than a 20/40 passive player. I think a good rule of thumb is to bet less against the 8/16 passive and more against the 20/40 passive. The 20/40 passive will be more polarized in their range from my experience. I agree that the 8/16 passive tends to be irrationally mubsy on the river.

Passive players can be frusterating to play against but they are also quite profitable to play against. They will rarely extract max value from you. The key is not to value pound yourself.

Ultimately it comes down to what variety of passive we are dealing with.

Obviously, from the way you phrase the question, your hand turned out to be good. Therefore you should have bet the river when checked to.

In the heat of battle, I would probably check behind.

The more interesting part of the hand, IMHO is the flop. Tight-passive player calls your raise and k/r's your cbet on a KxKy2y flop. Why did you continue.

I am not saying that continuing is bad, I in fact want to hear about your decision process. It affects what ought to be your river decision.

I think folding the turn is entirely too exploitable. When I say tight/passive, I mean for this particular game. I still put flush draws, smaller pairs and perhaps even the best ace highs in his range.

Make this range explicit, and then determine which of these hands fails to bet the river. Then you'll have your answer.

Tight passive is the same in any game. It's someone who plays few hands and does not take aggressive actions without the goods.

If you put FDs, PPs and Ax in his xr range then villain is not definitely not TAP. He's textbook LAG.

And if this is what you feel is his xr range on this flop, then the answer to your title is yes, you should have put in another bet. I would recommend it OTT. Vs such a wide xr range I would raise his turn bet to charge his FDs and protect your equity vs Ax. If he calls and river bricks out and he x to us, I'd x back. No worse hand can call.

Passive pre, aggro on flop is actually a rather common archetype at both the 8 and 20 games at Canterbury

I'm okay with checking here. I might bet w/ a read.

100%

Even the passive tight players will put in some action on flops in this room.

Pretty obvious the guy had a flush draw. Funny no one is taking into consideration that the hand is heads-up! People tend to get more agressive in heads up pot. Makes complete since that the villain would check raise a flush draw here on flop, bet turn, and give up on river. And you should have bet river. No way! the guy has you beat and even if he is folding to your bet, you still get to keep ur hand a mystery.

I think this as well.

The only thing that would be remotely interesting about 99 at showdown here would be if we were called after betting it.

The whole reason I posed this question is I just feel he never has a king. As far as I see it, we lose to TT, JJ and maybe some bad Qx of spades combos. That being said I find it hard to think this guy would call me with worse.