QUOTE
Well its not a donk bet, as he was c/r on the turn
True.
I would have 3bet the turn.
So I assumed he had as well.
My thoughts:
On the turn, his check raise represents strength.
2 spades, set, 2 pair, etc.
He could realistically have a lot of hands that beat us.
Or he could be bluffing with a hand that does not beat us.
But the fact that he still bet the river when a forth Flush card hits narrows his range greatly.
It is now much less likely that he is continuing to bet with a set or 2-pair on its own.
He is now usually only representing the two spades.
Not only that, but since the 4th spade on the baord didn't scare him, he is representing two spades with at least one of a high rank.
So we could say...
The chances of him bluffing remain the same.
But the number of hands that he has represented that have us beat has dropped.
After having said all that...
The qusetion is: Does he have the FLush?
My answer: Yes.
He probably does!
He certainly could have been bluff raising the turn with a 1-card Flush Draw
(Which is why I 3bet the turn for value.)
But I feel that our hand still wins more than the 10%-15% of the time that it needs to to make the call profitable.
QUOTE
(I ask because I find myself calling a turn c/r then calling river and finding myself badly beat often)?
This is a valid concern.
Under normal circumstances, if we hold a marginal hand and a tight villain check-raises us when a scare card hits on the turn, it will be too costly to call down 2 more big bets to see showdown.
But this is a very different situation here.
We didn't get check-raised when a scare card hit.
It happened when our
best card hit.
So we are certainly not going to fold there.
And after that, it only costs us 1 more bet to possibly win a pretty large pot.
So it is much cheaper to call down in this situation.
--cm
QUOTE
Villain could easily be Clarkmeistering AK, no spade
I completely agree that he could have been bluffing with AK.
(which is why I 3bet the turn.)
But I don't think he bets the river in that case.
(at least, he shouldn't.)
When he bets the river, i think we can discount the K as a threat.
If he checked the river, I would no longer think he is bluffing (at least not enough of the time).
And I would have been more afraid of this situation.
--cm