QQ vs BTN

I actually like check-calling better. Getting three streets of value with QQ by betting is hard. There are busted draws, so he might decide to bluff.

WonSD is quantifable indicator after about 1k hands, I assume u dont have that sample (0/2 ftcb)

Doesnt look like a bluff tho, I wouldnt expect someone from NL10 bluff that decently

Agree with Berezovaya. On NL10 it is very rarely a bluff.

I thought that his bet is rarely a bluff as well in that spot. (if ever)

Isn't an overpair here, as strong as QQ, too strong to x/c? I would be giving free cards to all his draws and I would miss value from lower PPs.

Check-call on river?

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood. Thought he was referring to x/calling the Flop.

I agree that x/calling the River vs. an aggressive villain is superior. However seeing his AF OTR made me lean towards folding.

And you base that on having seen the guy in three showdowns, maybe even without the chance for him to make a move increasing AF?

He sure as hell has JJ/TT/99/A8s in his range going into the river, and almost surely not AA/KK. He might bet JJ/TT/99 for thin value, and he might also bluff air, partly because OP checked river, and partly because you actually should bluff some. When you have a bluff catcher beating a good chunk of his value range in addition to bluffs, then folding becomes awful.

Thanks for the hostility but I don't mind!

And yes, I based my decision on the information I had. I see your point and my play may be nitty but I am trying to improve.
If you take into account the population read that people are too passive OTR then I think folding there is good.

Also I need about 36% to make the call and against a rough range I have given him I would have the required equity so I guess it's pretty close.

Originally posted by trznk
Thanks for the hostility but I don't mind!

And yes, I based my decision on the information I had. I see your point and my play may be nitty but I am trying to improve.
...

No hostility intended, and you have a very good point as well, which I acknowledge: In poker we have to go on the information we actually have, however little the sample is. The only difference perhaps is that I'd use his observed river behavior in an extremely close decision. This decision isn't close enough imo.

On the other hand, observations like "they never bluff here" or "he bets 5x the pot, it must be a bluff" based solely on attempts to actually figure out what they are holding are useless. Hole-card cameras are needed for that.