"Pot Limit and No Limit Poker" theory question

[StLouisMike]

The following quotes are from Pot Limit and No Limit Poker.

"Someone who bets or raises is taking the most aggressive action possible at that point. Therefore he has an
unlimited hand. There is a chance he holds the mortal nuts. The player who checks or calls has a limited hand, at least in theory."

I believe that this is backwards. By betting or raising you limit the hand you may have to a certain few groups, at least in theory. When analyzing a play that a player makes we all try to put him on a range of hands, by betting or raising it makes the range of his hands limited to his style of play, table image, current situation, etc. Does anyone agree with this? If you disagree please state why.

Mike

[Ghazban]

What the author is trying to say is that a person betting could be betting for many reasons. They might have a lock and want to get more money in the pot. They might be semibluffing, they might be on a stone cold bluff. A person who calls must have something (a draw, a strong slowplayed hand, a desire to bluff on a later street).

In a simplified example, let's say player A bets on the river and player B calls. What do you know about player A's hand at this point? Basically nothing; he could've been bluffing, value betting, trying to induce a bluff-raise, whatever. What do you know about player B's hand? A ton more. He clearly believes he will show down the best hand at least enough of the time for the call to be +EV. We also know he doesn't have the nuts (provided player A's bet was not all-in) because he certainly would've raised.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that this is backwards. By betting or raising you limit the hand you may have to a certain few groups, at least in theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

A bettor can have a legitimate hand, a draw, or a bluff. A caller can have all of the above except for a bluff.

[StLouisMike]

thanks for clarifying.