I thought this was interesting. Hand history from Live Low-Stakes NL that includes a large flop raise followed by dark check from villain.
Long story short:
Villain (loose, calling a lot, though not witnessed to be aggro) limps early, Hero raises w/ AA in HJ to $20. BB and Villain call.
Flop Kx 8d 6d
Hero bets $50, BB calls, Villain check-raises to $300, Hero calls, BB folds.
Villain dark-checks.
Here's full history:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/17...-deep-1552659/
Curious to get people's opinions on what range they'd assign to villain with this behavior considering previous action. Here is what I said about it:
Quote:
Does anyone else think that when a player dark-checks like this on the turn that it really caps their range to vulnerable hands? Whenever I've seen this kind of thing (bet or raise and then check dark next street) it's almost always been something decent but vulnerable. On one hand, if he was very strong he'd be unlikely to want to just pass up value and he'd tend to be more thoughtful about it and want to at least see the card before acting. And on the other hand if he was bluffing/semi-bluffing it's unlikely he'd want to just give up without at least considering the next card and how that changes things.
So in this case it makes me think sets and 2-pair and turned flushes are unlikely when he checks dark on turn. When I read the hand history, my first thought was something like AK or KQ. Anyone concur?
Should clarify above: when I say 'vulnerable hand' I mean a one-pair hand that could be pretty strong in context but is still just one pair. So even though AA or AK is pretty strong, it's still 'vulnerable'. That's how I think of it in my mind, which helps classify those hands as different from 2-pair and sets and stronger.