I was dealt in a $25 nl game with .15/.25 blinds with a raise in front of me and 1 caller...

I called the moderate raise of 3 times the BB...

the flop comes off as ...

both players check this to me and I bet the pot....

the first player folds and the next player calls the pot sized bet (around $6$)

the next card is

I bet the pot again with my

I get called again ....

the river is

I bet the remaining $10 I have....in the $25 nl game...
and get quickly called and lose to...


he called the pot sized bet not once but TWICE....is there anything I could have seen or done differently with this hand? I just think that in a $25 nl game these are the river calls I can expect....or maybe I just ran into a complete moron that caught a card.....

I don't think I would have bet the river. If he was only on a draw or playing an underpair to the board, he's not going to call you. If he calls your bet or makes a big bet against your check, you're probably beat.

Hands don't happen in isolation.

If he's been watching you for a while, was there anything in your play that led him too believe that his hand was good? Too many hands played, etc?

However quite what he thought you had I don't know.

I guess I'd throw out one other point to consider, and it has to do with the amount of your bets.

This flop was great for your hand, and you correctly read it as being in the lead. However, you can't really fall in love with it because it's vulnerable to a lot of draws, including an opponent holding any card higher than 9. Thus, while you want to bet enough to take away the pot odds of having someone chase those draws, you risked a lot with two pot-sized bets when there were still a lot of cards in the deck that could ultimately beat you.

Dan Harrington has written a great book that I just finished reading (I think it's called "Harrington on Hold 'em, Vol. I"), and one of the reasons that I liked it so much was he describes a lot of hands and how he would play them. With a hand like this, Harrington would suggest betting about 1/2 to 2/3 of the pot. That kind of bet is big enough to make a call incorrect, but small enough that it doesn't unduly jeopardize your stack.

Harrington's book is entirely about tournament-style play, but I think his reasoning translates to the situation you faced. His point is basically that you do not want to overplay hands that are not huge favorites to hold up.

In the end, your opponent made two horrendous calls, and there was probably nothing you could have done differently to stop him from chasing. It seems to me that the only thing you could have done differently is be slightly less aggressive with a hand that is vulnerable and will often not hold up.

I've nearly finished Harrington on Hold'em at Beavis' recommendation. Very interesting.

Made me think a lot more systematically about bet sizes among other things.

I agree that the pot sized bet may have looked like a buy.

I agree with the others on this. You have been watched and not trusted to be playing this way with high pairs I would suppose. You have probably shown many AJ or Ax when betting the pot or 3X the bet. This would leave it open to the others to expect you to be trying to steal the pot. You were hoping to string these guys along to catch as much money as possible. The only problem is that the fish caught the worm at the end. Reason being that you let him.
If you would have bet large on the turn and he had nothing but a KQ, he probably would not have called a large bet figuring you for Ace high at least. I try to get them out or make them pay alot for the river. If they are gonna fish, its gonna be a real expensive pole!