[CurryLover]

[ QUOTE ]
Rick makes an excellent point here in that the size of your bet should NEVER be determined by what you have. The size of the bet is determined by position, by the shape of the flop, by your table image, by stack sizes, and by other criteria, all of which is available to the other players, but NEVER by what you hold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this point. But check this out from the same section in the book by Mike Caro (the book is 'Mike Caro's Guide to Doyle Brunson's Super/System', by the way):

'In general, your bets should be varied in such a way that the stronger your hand for a given situation, the bigger your bet on average.
You might think that this will give your opponents clues as to what you hold, but that's OK. The winning theory here is that by randomising your decisions enough, you can tend to bet the strength of your hand on average without your opponents being able to take advantage of it...'

I guess it is impossible to disagree with his comment about the need for deception by randomising your decisions. However, what are people's thoughts on Caro's premise that on average your bet size should reflect the strength of your hand? Sounds pretty dubious to me - or have I missed something?