[ QUOTE ]
I don't think he has the ace he's representing, I have 8 high and I want the pot. Maybe he calls the turn with a small/med pair and finally believes me when I bet the river. My perception is in the higher games you have to make more 'uncomfortable' follow through bets because players are better hand readers and you need to do anything you can to convince them you have what you're representing as well as make them know that when you raise the turn they have to call 2 bets to see your hand and that you're not just a guy who raises for 'free' showdowns a lot. Players that raise the turn and check behind on the river a decent amount are much easier to play against.

[/ QUOTE ]

BK,

I've played up to 30/60 (never higher) and what you're saying makes sense. If we let people push us around, our future at that particular table is pretty grim. However, I think we tend to value our own image a lot more than our opponents do. That's part of the ego-centrical poker world in which we play.

Isn't the biggest reason those follow through bets are 'uncomfortable' due to their limited success? Once we get called on the turn, we pretty much know we're grasping for straws on the river, and hate to invest all of that money only to fail at showdown.

I understand that if we freeze the action on the river and look at that bet separately, we only need the villain to fold 1 in every 9 times to make the bet worthwhile. But what about all of the compounded -EV bets that led us there? Is it worth planning things like this out from the start of the hand (by saying "this will be my 'move' hand if I miss"), or is this just a result of being backed into a corner by several failed attempts?