This is a good time to check behind on the river I think. Obviously you can't count on your opponent pushing with KQo every time.

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

screw that, I knew he was beat.

Yes, but do you really see him calling $5 with anything that you have beat. If you are 100% you have the best hand, and you know he is extremly weak, the only bet i can see being profitible is the minimum bet. Most of the time, they won't make a play like that, and you will either gain what was in the pot anyway, or lose $5 to someone with a better hand then you.

helmuthpoker201 that makes no sense.

"if you are 100% sure you ahve the best hand, the only bet I can see being profitable is the minumum bet"

If you have the best hand, why isn't a bigger bet profitable?

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

because if you are 100% sure you have the best hand with such a marginal hand, then you are basically putting him on absouloutly nothing, so I don't see him calling even 2x the big blinds. If you know you have it, i think maybe he would call 50 cents just to see what you have but is he really going to call $1 or more with king high.

Back to my original point, just check that river.

The $5 bet on the end is -EV. I have only skimmed the other replies so this may have beeen covered already.

This is a clear situation where you will most likely only get called if you are beat. There is a striahgt, a flush and a boat possible, even a bigger pair than yours.

All you could beat was a bluff, so there was no gain in betting, cause a bluff was folding.

I say let the river go check check.

Well said. I agree completly.

Fold on the flop or raise like beavis said. Your turn call is pretty bad IMO. His small bets, and then the check/raise on the river looked like a trap to me. And, I'd check behind on the river.

this post is like a trick question, it really shouldn't have been posted understrategy and asked as a question. This should have gone in the glory forum.

It obviously worked out for Umich Guy but I hate the way the whole hand was played.

and if this guy would make this kind of bet a reasonable percentage of the time, it is not -EV. But it sure seems like it is against most opponents.

I don't like the call down because any card that hits you could tell yourself that he doesn't have it. He also may have played 99 or 88 the same way.

Yea, if you know your oponent well enough to make this sort of play and be able to make an amazing call like that, then of course its positive ev. But the fact is, I don't think umich knew this guy, so I definitly think the bet is -ev, it just happened to work out this time.