A few general situations and my actions

[Cerril]

Default actions here, assume opponents that are neither complete maniacs nor complete rocks. sLP-P with AF ~.7

Holding TT/JJ, flop is three unders with a two-flush. I'm checkraised and call - two to the turn, which puts the third to a suit I don't have on the board. I call down (betting if checked to).

Holding 99-QQ, three or four bets to the flop multiway. I make a set and see limited action. My opponent caps the turn when an overcard hits. I bet out on the river, calling a raise.

Holding 55-88 in LP two bets to the flop, I make bottom set. Four bets on the flop no straight or flush possibilities, I raise the turn and call down when reraised.

Four bets to me on the button with TT-JJ, I fold. (With QQ, I call unless one of the raisers is passive?)

In the SB in 3/6 (1/3 blinds), holding T2s with 3 limpers, I fold.

[Rubeskies]

Situation 1: If it's checked to you and you bet are you folding to a check/raise?

Situation 2: Sounds pretty good. If he capped it preflop and lights up when an overcard comes and then caps the turn, I'm check/calling. Only because he is passive though.

Situation 3: This depends a lot on the board and who raised preflop.

Situation 4: If the passive guy capped it it's a good fold depending on how many people are gonna see the flop.

Situation 5: Easy fold.

[Cerril]

Overall, I notice you give a lot of weight to the passive read. That makes sense but even most of the people I have tagged as overall aggressive don't put in third and fourth bets all that often, so I'd tend to give their caps nearly the same amount of weight unless they have really high (2.5+) Agg(maybe I shouldn't?)

1) If I get checkraised when the scare card hits I'll probably fold the turn. If I get checkraised from a river blank I'll call.

2-3) These are based on an observation that I'd made that my biggest 'holes' in my middle PP hands are almost across the board set-over-set scenarios. Obviously this is to be expected but when I noticed that PT puts my three or four biggest losing hands in quite a few PPs as set-over-set rather than them catching a flush or straight (which also put in appearances, especially against AA), I wondered if that's just normal variance balanced out by the gains I make when I hit sets and they don't with their overpairs, or if I should be playing them differently.

[Rubeskies]

[ QUOTE ]
but even most of the people I have tagged as overall aggressive don't put in third and fourth bets all that often, so I'd tend to give their caps nearly the same amount of weight unless they have really high (2.5+) Agg(maybe I shouldn't?)

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen people passive players check call with the nuts and the one you all the time is when they'll only call a raise with a set always thinking you have a higher set if you've shown agression.

[ QUOTE ]
2-3) These are based on an observation that I'd made that my biggest 'holes' in my middle PP hands are almost across the board set-over-set scenarios. Obviously this is to be expected but when I noticed that PT puts my three or four biggest losing hands in quite a few PPs as set-over-set rather than them catching a flush or straight (which also put in appearances, especially against AA), I wondered if that's just normal variance balanced out by the gains I make when I hit sets and they don't with their overpairs, or if I should be playing them differently.

[/ QUOTE ]

I highly doubt you have enough sets in your PT database to make accurate observations about them. You make a set something like 1/9 times you play them. So it would take tens probably hundreds of thousands of hands to get accurate readings on your sets. Theoretically they should all be on the positive side or low pps wouldn't be worth playing at all.