Villain's stats were 37/26/3.4. We hadn't tangled all that much at the table, but he seemed to be a smart player. I'd three bet him once before... he called my c-bet and won the pot on the turn when he bet after my check.

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $0.50 BB (5 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

Hero ($101.10)
BB ($17.45)
UTG ($157.85)
MP ($50)
Button ($179.50)

Preflop: Hero is SB with Q, A.
2 folds, Button raises to $1.75, Hero raises to $5.85, 1 fold, Button calls $3.85.

Flop: ($11.95) 5, 5, 3 (2 players)
Hero bets $8, Button calls $8.

Turn: ($27.95) A (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $15, Hero calls $15.

River: ($57.95) 9 (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $45, Hero calls.

Good or no?

Tough decision. He called your flop bet so it looks a lot like some kind of overpair, which you should be beating after that turn A. I prefer a turn lead or a river blocking bet of like 25, folding to a raise. As played, it's a tough call.

That's a pretty stiff raise on the river. Definitely doesn't look like a value bet. There are plenty of hands you beat and about the only ones that make sense that you're behind to would be AA or AK. If the villian was a solid player I think I'd still fold. Most others I make a crying call.

Why bet $8 on the flop then when u hit your card on the turn you check? If I did check that turn card it would only be with the intention of checkraising. With the way you played it (showing weakness on the turn and river) I think you have to call. I assume you lost to either AK or AA though.

I wouldn't have checked the turn. Why allow him to take over the control of the betting here? I'd continue betting and if he raises, then fold. Now we're in a spot where we can't really put him on a hand. He might have suspected you didn't like the ace, and might be thinking his QQ or JJ is good. Or you could be behind the whole time here. As played I think you have to call. Next time, think about continuing to lead the betting.

His stats are very LAG and it seems like he is playing a crash and burn game. Call river and note that he likes to float. If he has any kind of 5 then just 3 bet him regularly because obviously he is calling with weak hands.

I think there's an obsession with being in control of the betting and this is the kind of hand I mean.

What is this villain calling with that we beat? What is he folding that's ahead of us?

I like the way the OP played it. He loses the minimum when he's behind and wins the most (usually -- I concede that a hand like JJ or TT might call a bet on the river with the way this hand was played) when he's ahead.

I think by losing control in this hand we give the villian the opportunity to represent AK. Which is exactly what he did. The OP bet the flop then checked when the Ace hit. He played it like a scared PP and the villian took the lead and represented that scare card leaving us completely clueless as to where we are in the hand. He could very well have AK here but I think we now have to call him down because his range is so wide and a bluff is very possible here.

I agree with Naismith here. I think by checking he allows the villian to bluff into him with a range of hands that would be done on the turn. Its a scary way to play it but I don't think the hero is getting paid by any hands he beats by betting the turn. As played though you have to call the river.

Agreed. The way this played out, we're going all the way with this A and its *****.

Results: Villain had quads. Sick! I'm happy with the way I played the hand though. It seemed like this was a WA/WB situation and that my line would get me the most value against a LAG in the long run.