Foucault Just another PokerSavvy weblog

It’s not really fair to call the Villain in this hand a nit, but he’s one of the tightest winning 5/10 regulars anyway. That’s part of the reason I bet the turn against him, rather than just check-calling the turn as I might against a more aggressive player.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold’em, $10.00 BB (6 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from PokerSavvyPlus.com

Hero (SB) ($2982)
BB ($970)
UTG ($969.50)
MP ($200)
CO ($275)
Button ($3271.65)

Preflop: Hero is SB with A, 9
1 fold, MP bets $20, 1 fold, Button calls $20, Hero raises to $90, 2 folds, Button calls $70

Flop: ($210) 3, 9, A (2 players)
Hero bets $177, Button calls $177

Turn: ($564) 8 (2 players)
Hero bets $388, Button raises to $880, Hero calls $492

River: ($2324) K (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $2124.65 (All-In), Hero folds

Total pot: $2324 | Rake: $3

Results:
Button shows 4, 4 (one pair, fours).
Outcome: Button won $2321

I told him in chat that 4’s were the best hand, but really even Kdx beats 44 by the river, so I doubt he believed me.

It’s pretty unlikely that I’ll have a flush by the river, but against a nit I don’t really consider calling with less. That’s the problem with exploitive play: it is itself exploitable.