$100 PLO on UB. Avg pot >$50. Villain is a regular who seems to be a winning player. He raises a lot of hands preflop. On the flop he is selectively aggressive (he won't CB if he misses against a large field) but he picks up a lot of med sized pots uncontested. He is also tricky and not afraid to bluff big in HU pots.

I have $120, villain covers.

I get [Ts][Td][9s] in MP and limp. Villain in SB raises. EP (unremarkable) and me are the only callers.

Flop (pot=$20): [Tc][8s]. Villain checks, EP checks, I pot. Villain calls quickly, EP folds.

Turn (pot=$60): . Villain thinks for a while and checks. I check behind.

River (pot=$60): . Villain thinks again and checks. I bet $30.

Here's my thinking throughout the hand: please let me know if you think it is correct.

Preflop: standard: I have a decent hand, position on a loose raisor.
Flop: Usually villain will try to pick up the pot if he has a decent part of the board. I think he'd lead out with a set, big draw, or even top two. I pot because I think I'm ahead here, and because I need to protect against better draws.
(BTW, what would you do if checkraised allin here?)
Turn: I make my flush (third best). I'm still quite confident I'm ahead but I'm not sure what villain called my flop bet with. At any case if I'm ahead then villain doesn't have many outs against me so the free card is not too much of an issue. If I'm behind I don't want to invest too much. Also, I wouldn't like to face an allin checkraise here and having to figure out if it was the nut flush or not. Finally, if I check behind here villain may think that I took a stab on the flop and he may bluff the river.
River: it's pretty clear now that villain doesn't have a monster. I make a value bet which, according to him may look like a bluff. (This is my standard amount; I'd bet the same with the nuts). He should call here with anything better than two pair I think.

Is villian tricky enough that he'd check the turn and river with a nut flush to induce a bluff? Most people wouldn't check the river with a nut flush after you checked behind on the turn.

It just feels like he's trying to get to a showdown as cheaply as possible, which tells me he probably has a non-spade straight. If that's the same amount you'd bet with the nuts, then I like it.

It sure looks like he was drawing to a str8, hit it, but is afraid of the flush.

I'd probably have bet the turn. If he came back over the top then I'd almost have odds to chase my boat and one out sf draw (I think, the math is too involved for me right now).

I'm afraid that by not betting the turn you have set yourself up having no clue at all about his hand and a checkraise on the river will put you to the test. He could easily raise you with a weaker flush under the assumption that you have a str8 and are worried about the flush that hit. If he did c/r the river then I'd make a note to not mess with the guy very often, that's a ballsy move.

JD, if you fear a CR on the river (which I thought was unlikely, since it would be a highly advanced play, especially if he doesn't have me beat), then sure you're fearing a CR on the turn just as well? Don't you want to go to showdown here?

BTW, as played, do you think I should fold to a river CR?

JD's analysis of what he has makes a lot of sense to me. I think I would have checked the river here--probably too WT, and I could bet it with a solid read (mainly that he'll definitely pay off with a fair number of losers). But this kind of player can often get tricky with big hands, so I'd prefer to show down a hand that I think is probably a winner. Bigger flushes still do worry me here.

There's no need to "fear" a CR on the river, just fold if you think you're beat. Same result as if you bet the turn.

I think I mostly like your line, cephalopod. I probably fire a little less on the river.

Results, in case anyone is interested: he called the river bet with the nut straight.