[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
this doesn't make sense to me slater, why would you bet/fold if you don't have the flush, but then check/call if you do have the flush?? If only a hand that beats you would call, then why would you bet in the first place?

I can speak from experience that this works, i had QJs and hit the flush on the turn. four flush hit on the river, the guy went all in (no limit) and I folded it. The guy was pretty tight, so i think he had the ace, but i still wonder to this day.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bet is intended to make them fold, not call. And this is in no way applicable to NL where any size bet can be made. It applies to limit only, where you are usually risking 1 bet to win 6 or 7 banking on the fact that villian won't have a flush 1 in X amount of times and forcing them to make a tough a call with a better hand than yours because you are representing a flush. But if you do have a flush then you have a hand with showdown value and you don't want to be raised off the best hand (by someone who may know of this theory, but against a donk you might bet.)

It no limit you will rarely get such good fold equity for a OOP bet in this situation.