[Wynton]

I just talked a bit more about this with a very wise man. (I'd identify him, but he is modest to a fault.)

I mentioned that a big part of the issue for me is trying to figure out pf whether I'm likely to want my opponent to fold on the flop. If I think my hand is best, one could argue that it's better to extract more bets later from villain.

But the wise man has reminded me about the size of the pot, leading to two choices:
(1) If we cap, the pot is now big enough that we really do want to win the pot on the flop, rather than let villain pursue his 6 outs or so (assuming that neither of us pair, and he's got 2 other high cards).
(2) If we don't cap, the pot won't be as big. So we want more bets out of our opponent on flop and/or turn. But without capping, our opponent (who is aggressive) will certainly lead the flop. We could raise then or wait until the turn. But this second option is more complicated, potentially more profitable, but also more risky.

So, it now seems to me that the pf cap might be the path of least resistance, at least against this particular opponent.

I also should add that there is a significant "feels good to cap" factor. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]