[stigmata]

A) With those stats plus your read, I give him credit for a hand that beats us, so I fold river UI. You are getting 10:1 on the river, so it's a nice size pot, but I just don't think you are winning it anywhere close to that often against this opponent.

B) I'm going to carry on trusting the read, and generally say we need top pair or strong mid pair depending on circumstances. Of course there are exceptions (big pot, we suspect he may have raised with a strong draw, etc.)

This could change with my table image. Even some passive players start taking shots at you if you keep folding the turn and river. If it happened on a couple of occasions I would begin to loosen my call-down requirements and start looking him up.

C) More aggressive opponents. I don't know where you draw the line, but I would want to have some idea from stats/read that he was capable of bluff/semi-bluff raising scare cards etc. This is probably the majority of opponents at 20/40 [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] However, other factors such as table image come into play.

****
Sidenote related to point C:
Iv'e been playing some of these hyper-aggressive 20/40 short games recently. Generally, where possible, I have been trying to create an "un-bluffable" image. For example, if I think it is close between calling/folding, I will generally try and get to showdown, particularly early in a session, and when I have position (can get to SD cheaper etc.) Like most things in poker, I have had mixed results with this tactic. Certainly it has calmed some players down post-flop and made them easier to read / more honest.

So in the hand above, against an aggressive opponent, I would have odds to call turn, and by the river the pot is so bloated that I have to call, especially for meta-game considerations.

Anyway, was just interested in your input on these meta-game considerations? Is an "unbluffable" image really that useful?