Because if he is on a broken draw, betting has no point. If he has a worse hand I should bet, thats what I was asking. I still felt resonably sure my hand was good.

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann

In that case I think you should definitely bet. Against bad players I tend to bet. They are more likely to have called down with a pair b/c they are bad players. Better players might've at least ditched their 3s or 2s on the turn. Also considering some percentage of the busted draw hands include Ace high, and that he would call with Ace high, then he could sometimes call you with his busted draw.

As for the A7o example, I used mainly to make a counterexample to the pot odds idea. It's not exactly a parallel to your hand, as a top pair of aces is way way different thatn a top pair of sixes.

Ok, I lost the history, in this case my hand was good, he had some low pair like A3 or something.

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann

BTW bonch I just thought of this, so here's some food for thought.

Against a player who's loose enough to call down with a pair of 2s or 3s or even Ace high, this might be a case where you MUST bet the river. I think Theory of Poker talks about this.

If you bet:
You'll get called and beat by Ace High, 2s, 3s. You'll get called and lose to 6s with a higher kicker, 77/88.

If you check-call:
Ace High, 2s, 3s will check for a free showdown, and you win nothing. He will bet Q6,K6,A6,77,88, and you lose 1BB.

You always lose one BB when you lose, and but when you bet, you can get one more BB from his hands that you beat. I didn't give this too much thought as it just popped into my head, but I figured it was probably worth brining up.

fold preflop.

Mike

PS. I'll maybe type more later but am a little busy atm