[Aaron W.]

The basic idea was that there are hands that will not fold to a bet but might fold to
a check-raise.

This morning, I was thinking that an agressive player holding any pocket pair or any Q
might bet out on this flop to try to drive you off whatever hand you had if checked to.
The 3-bet preflop and check-raise flop with that board really looks like you've got a
huge holding (AQ, AK, AA) since you're not worried about giving a free card. Those
hands above would probably fold. If you are not 3-bet, you see the turn card, but
unlike bet-calling, you are in control of the hand and not the other way around.

(If the player were really agressive, then the preflop raise can be anything, and the
flop bet could be a much wider variety of hands.)

By going for a check-raise, there's a chance that you might see a free card on the
turn, too, giving you a free chance at your 2-outer. (If the 3-bet has caused your
opponent to be timid about his Qxs).

Those were my rationales as I was quickly typing up my response before heading off.
Now that I've had more time to think about it, I'm not quite as sure how much better
this move is, but I still think it's better than betting out. My gut reaction to the flop
raise was that maybe he's just taking a shot at the pot. This is why I like the check-
raise more, since it really puts the heat on your opponent and not the other way
around (very few players would 'take a shot' by 3-betting a flop against a preflop
3-bet).

I welcome any thoughts you have on this as I'm not fully confident this is the better of
the two plans.