200nl TT vs unknown

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $2.00 BB (6 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

have no stats on villian. my image is laggy as i've been involved in 3 of the last 4 hands before this one, and 2 involved me pushing ai.

CO ($239.87)
Button ($466)
SB ($315)
BB ($269.44)
Hero (UTG) ($322)
MP ($246.15)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with 10, 10
Hero bets $8, 1 fold, CO calls $8, Button calls $8, SB calls $7, 1 fold

Flop: ($34) 6, 8, 2 (4 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $25, 1 fold, Button calls $25, 1 fold

Turn: ($84) 6 (2 players)
Hero bets $50, Button calls $50

River: ($184) 9 (2 players)
Hero?

Total pot: $184 | Rake: $3

Its real close, I think prob bet like 80 and fold to shove. C/f seems just as good.

I check and sometimes call here.

I'm either betting to try to get value from 79/8x or else c/c because of all the draws. idk why ISF says c/f?

I'd bet/fold.

I'd prob go 100/fold and my action after a check probably mostly depends on the timing of the hand.. and whether or not I put him on a draw.

Q: Does it make sense that if you're not willing to c/c say a 2/3+ PSB, you b/f like 100-? (it's basically just a blocking bet I guess)

I'd check and just try to soulread river folding most of the time if he fires a decent bet, he'll check back all his weaker made hands like 8x,97, whilst he'll be checking or betting smallish with jj-qq. So if he bets big his range is preety polarised to trips/boats or missed f draws, and the average player will just give up here alot of the time if he bricks.

I guess bet/folding like 60-80 isn't bad but I'd usually check/reeval most of the time.

If our image was TAG, then b/f would be OK. But our image is laggy, so a 3barril from us on this paired board can be seen as trying to make villain fold ...

Originally Posted by jimmy44

If our image was TAG, then b/f would be OK. But our image is laggy, so a 3barril from us on this paired board can be seen as trying to make villain fold ...

doesn't that make betting an even better option then cause he's calling with bluff catchers?

Originally Posted by minSim

Q: Does it make sense that if you're not willing to c/c say a 2/3+ PSB, you b/f like 100-? (it's basically just a blocking bet I guess)

It makes sense if someone's calling range on a board is much wider than their value betting + bluffing range.

Originally Posted by surviva316

Originally Posted by jimmy44

If our image was TAG, then b/f would be OK. But our image is laggy, so a 3barril from us on this paired board can be seen as trying to make villain fold ...

doesn't that make betting an even better option then cause he's calling with bluff catchers?

yes, which is why i like b/f $100 way more than c/c or c/f.

Originally Posted by bode

Originally Posted by surviva316

Originally Posted by jimmy44

If our image was TAG, then b/f would be OK. But our image is laggy, so a 3barril from us on this paired board can be seen as trying to make villain fold ...

doesn't that make betting an even better option then cause he's calling with bluff catchers?

yes, which is why i like b/f $100 way more than c/c or c/f.

oh...i agree. i misread the post as an argument AGAINST b/f'ing

what's wrong with check-call? i rarely bet on this river.