1/3 Live NL
Villain: mid-30s REG. Slightly loose, definitely aggressive. Villain appears to be well-known and well-liked by other REGs at the casino and I have the impression that he is generally a fairly skilled player.
Hero: 40. (Newer player, fairly tight, not as aggressive as Villain, but not a NIT either)
Villain has lost 2 medium-sized pots in the last 3 orbits or so and was visibly annoyed. Hero has not played many pots recently (or since Villain sat down 45 min ago).
Villain (BUT): $450 (This is $300 NL. Villain came from another table and sat down with approx. $600.)
Hero (CO): $290
2 limpers before Hero opens in the CO with A
K
for $15.
Villain calls, limpers, SB, BB all fold.
Flop: ($40) J
8
5
Hero: bet $20
Villain: call
Turn: ($80) 7
Hero: check/call
Villain: bet $65
River: ($210) 2
Hero: bet $100
Villain: tanks for 3 minutes before deciding to fold. (He later says he had the flush on the turn.)
I make the call on the turn because I think there are some implied odds - i.e., I can extract more value if I make the nut flush. The problem is whether I can really do this when the river puts 4 to a flush on board. So, maybe the turn call was wrong for this reason (i.e., if I can't get more value, then I'm not getting good enough odds to call). Or, maybe there is a better play on the river. Would check-raising be better? (Of course, my worry with that is that he'll simply check it through to showdown.) Or, would a more polarized bet size (e.g. jamming for my remaining $190) be better to make him think I could just be stabbing? Given Villain's aggressive play style, I'm leaning toward thinking I should have checked the river and allowed him to bet. Any suggestions are much appreciated. BTW, this is my first HH post.