Presumably he had QQ ... However, there's one QQ left in the deck and there's plenty of 3's and AA's; of course it depends how he plays but against pretty much anybody I don't see why you'd want to slow down on this hand. If he happens to have something like AKQ3 then it's a really bad move to check the turn; if he has any 3 then you want to charge him to play on anyhow. Perhaps a small turn bet would be good, as you'd love to see him playing on with an overpair 2 outer. Likewise on the river, a small bet would probably suffice.

He was new to the table but so far he didn't look liike a fish or a monkey, he looks solid. after his pf raise and then he checked HU...??? i didn't like it but i'm not so tight weak to check the flop. on the turn i still didn't like it but i bet it. call me weak, but without a better read i checked to river behind. i didn't want to be looking at a c/r river, i would have a hard time calling and a hard time folding and didn't want to put myself in that situation. also, i couldn't think of many hands that would pay off a normal size river bet, and risking the c/r just wasnt' worth whatever milking bet i could put in.

So i checked and he showed AA3x. Very poorly played IMO.

Avram

I was just about to ask Monk about what he would do if Opponent made a pot-sized check raise to a small river bet. I agree that it would be tough either to call or fold there. Hence, I check. I currently prefer the low variance approach without the stonecold nuts or without a good read.

I don't have a good bead on PLO8 yet, but I also agree that many (most?) of the hands that would just call a pot-sized river bet would quite likely have you beat. Maybe I'm wrong here and give my opponents too much credit. The small river bet almost invites a check-raise to me -- in this case accurately representing the non-stone-cold-nuts hand. Maybe I think too much about this.

BTW, I'm not sure if my original post was clear or not... I only meant to suggest to check on the river. I like the bets on the flop and turn.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit today...

I'm starting to think that jamming the pot is the best here, but it largely depends on who you are playing with.

If the typical player gets married to high pocket pairs or trips or whatever, then jamming the river is good. You've got fold equity, opponent-is-a-moron equity, and just plain old strong hand equity. You will win more of these than you will lose.

If your playing with slow-playing nut-peddlers, then checking the river is probably a good idea. You will only get called and/or reraised if you are beat.

Sounds like you've got a lot of the former.

It's an odd situation but given the way he played there's about three hands he can have, QQ, AA3 or something like AKK3, AKQ3 etc. A whole ton of hands you beat and precisely two cards in the deck that beat you, the two remaining queens. If Ks or As show up on later streets you would be wise to slow down, but to me there are far more hands that you beat than you lose to given the possible situations, and the turn and river are both superb for you.

I would've taken a stab at having him on AA3x and bet the river I think. As I said in the first post -plenty of 3's and AA's but there's only two queens left - odds are you're ahead. I guess I'd call the CR but not be entirely happy about it - that said, it's rare he'll check-raise AND have the winner, so betting has got to be the way on the river. This is 25PLO, people call along with all sorts of crap, wouldn't surprise me if he called and showed down KK or something. I've seen worse at $400.