[Benman]

True, but what if the fold equity we create by being the aggressor in a particular hand always merits continued betting unless "x" happens, where "x" is something besides a mere overcard. Let me respond to you another way--if limit is a science, that doesn't necessarily make it a difficult science. The origin for my stupid little musings here is that I just finished the very interesting book "Blink", about intuitive thinking. The author tells the story of a Chicago heart doctor who invented a very simple algorythm (just a short flow chart really) that tells ER doctors how to respond to patients with potential heart attacks. What's interesting is that the algorythm only takes into account three different pieces of information, where conventional medical wisdom prior to that was that the more data you have about a heart patient the better you can make an accurate diagnosis between heart attack or something harmless. Surprisinly, the "thinnly sliced" algorythm was far more accurate than all the conventional medical wisdom before that. I wonder if certain common situations in limit hold'em might not yield themselves to simple rules and algorythms, without complicated analysis of boards and hands. For example, if you were the lone aggressor both pre-flop and flop, and now face one opponent on the turn, could it be that a turn bet is always the best play, regardless of what the turn card is? I wouldn't be surprised if very simple "truths" such as this (not saying this is one of them) emerge from the science of limit poker, and I agree it's a science.