[Mercman572]

[ QUOTE ]
Mercman572,

If he's a bad LAG, I think posting this hand is unnecessary. We'll find a call regardless of what we say. Nonetheless,

[/ QUOTE ]

If I thought it was a clear call, I wouldn't have posted it. Lags catch hands too. It's not a clear cut spot and Malachi's post offered valuable insight... sometimes a bad lag might push a draw when hit, I didn't think this was one of these times.

[ QUOTE ]
solid poker dicatates folding without the re-draw; can we agree on that?"

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're missing the point of this post. If a player is aggressive you have to have decide what his aggression means. The entire hand "felt" like it was inconsistent with what he was representing. With these guys you have to decode what their bet is meant to do and generally do the opposite. PFR, followed by a close to PSB. He calls in position with a big and obvious draw, and when it looks like I got scared by the turn card he pushes with another card to come? Doesn't look like he wants a call. As I said, a smaller bet would be much more consistent (and what I expected to see when that ugly card came) with a made hand; it wants a call.

This call was inspired by a midstakes post of a player vs AceHighStation. In the hand Acehigh fired 2 PSB's HU when all small cards came. Xorbie suggested hero with QQ push this turn since the extremely large bet seemingly wanted a call. Xorbie was right and Acehigh had AK overs.

I made this post because I'm beginning to think that many opponents at this level are "designing" bets to achieve a purpose; 1/2 pot blocker bets on the river, 2/3 turn bets to protect against a flushdraw. If you read teh mid-high Faq Soah has made he says the key distinction is deviating between ABC play. Since this is the cusp of the 2 stakes, there should be some transfer. If my thinking process isn't valid, I would hope that someone could explain why.