My limit experiment is over. Im back to NL where Im comfortable and i enjoy playing. I know I can beat the limit games also, but theyre not fun for me and Im supossed to be having fun right? So here is a hand from today.
$2/$4 NL at Stars

I limp UTG+1 with [3d]. The button limps and the BB checks.
The pot is $14. The flop comes [3s][5d]. I normally dont slow play sets but there are no draws so I checked this time. It got checked around.
Pot still $14. The turn is the . Now we're talking. BB leads out for $4. I raise to $16. The button folds and the BB calls.
Pot is $46. The river is the . BB checks and I bet $28. The BB now check raises to $60. He has $250 left and I have him easily covered.

What does he have? He bet the king and called a fairly good sized raise. So Im prety sure he has a king. What does he think I have? He has to think I have a king also and he thinks his kicker is higher. KQ?

If he does have KQ will he call a large reraise? Probably not, but surely he'll call a min reraise. I made a horrible mistake and just called his raise. WHY? I dont know What was I thinking? I dont know. For some reason I thought he might have K5. Talk about looking for monsters under the bed. That was a horrible play on my part.

He had KJ and I couldve gotten much more out of him.

I usually don't go for the min. reraises on the river. I like to make a big reraise. That way if they do call, you're making a ton. A lot of times it will look like a bluff too, which gives that extra incentive.

As for why you just called this, I dunno....maybe bad beats from limit were rubbing off?

I think that was it, along with several others from an earlier $100NL session. I still cant believe I just called....dumb dumb dumb.

Since your set is smaller than the pair on the board and the opponent was in the BB, wouldn't it be realistic that the BB had 5's full to beat your 3's full? I'm not a NL player, just trying to learn. The fact that he's in the BB would scare me into just calling. Please explain why is was so dumb to just call.

I only called because of the possibility that he did have 5's full, but thats a weak play. A set is gold in NL and I shouldve made more money on the hand. If it was anyone other than a blind I was up against, I wouldve reraised and been willing to play for his whole stack.
Its very rare that I would lose that hand the way it was played which is why I shouldve reraised. I just didnt think his hand was better than KQ and didnt think he would call a large reraise so I didnt want to reopen the betting in the off chance that I WAS beat. Like i said, thats a weak play.

I would have raised it another $100, small enough that he could call you and small enough that if he has k/5 or J/5, he goes all in and you can fold. I think k/5 is a possibily here. He flops 2nd pair, checks it on the flop. Hits his two pair on the turn tries to get some callers thinking his two pair has to be good. There is no way for him to put you on a set so he calls you raise hopig that you are playin AK, or KQ, than hits his boat on the river. The progression does make sense. Maybe I have played to much party poker =).

I agree that I shouldve reraised about $100, but if he came back over the top, I dont think I wouldve folded.

Isn't Penelope just a corollary to the more common thought that you don't want to bet a medium strong hand because you're only going to get called/raised by a better one? (I just posted a question about how this applies in low limit games...)

I do welcome your suggestion of naming and listing these principles, although I am unsure of the reasoning behind your nomenclature.

Pieter

Remember, Im just a poker playing cop, not a deep thinker. I may need therapy after trying to decipher that post.