This hand tipped me off that the villain (in the next hand) is a savage (hand-made hand history):

Rocketwad is MP1 with ace king . Villain is button.

2 folds. Rocketwad raises. 2 folds. CO calls. Button calls. Blinds fold.

Flop is 3 4 6

Rocketwad bets, CO calls, Button calls.

Turn is q

Rocketwad checks (I give up). CO bets. Button calls. Rocketwad folds.

River is 9

CO bets. Button calls.

CO shows ace 6
Button shows 9 10

Now that was weird (at least I thought it was weird).

Soooo, a few hands later, I am in the CO position with the following:

Rocketwadster is CO with k 9

5 folds, Rocektwadster raises, Button Folds, Sb folds, BB 3-bets (Button villain from above hand...aka the savage), Rocketwadster calls.

Flop is k 8 10

BB checks, Rocketwadster bets, BB raises, Rocketwadster calls.

Turn is 5

BB bets, Rocketwadster calls.

River is 3

BB bets, Rocketwadster calls.

[size=7][color=darkred]BB shows ace ace

Was this correct, based on what I have seen this opponent do in the very recent past? :?

1st hand...he's a passive calling station...

2nd hand...he's playing aggressively...might have to let it go.

For the first hand, if the nine came on the flop or turn, I might call him a calling station. It came on the river though, so what was he calling on? Ten high?

Second hand - yes, he has no shown some aggression that he did not in the first hand (he didnt even raise after hitting one of his cards on the river...), however, do I automatically give him credit for having pocket aces, pocket kings, pocket 8's, pocket tens, or ace king and possibly ace queen (all these hands could 3-bet pre-flop and check raise the flop with the exception of the ace queen IMO)? Could he not very easily have pocket queens, pocket jacks, pocket nines, etc. that I am currently beating? :?