[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is an interesting point, but I believe this is a matter of experience. The reason that it feels easier to play post flop with strong hands when we 3-bet is because we've done it so often. If we autobet after a 3-bet and villain raises, we have a general idea of what to do because we’ve been in spots like that hundreds if not thousands of times. Therefore, I don't think post flop is necessarily harder to play in absolute terms. It's just harder to play when you're new at it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good point and this is one of the reasons I'm experimenting. Before you can shift gears you need to have more than one gear. That means gaining experience in playing postflop after different types of preflop play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think that there's a bit more to it than just playing in an unfamiliar style, though that is certainly a big issue in my mind.

Another aspect is that our opponent may not be familiar with this style. This might sound like an entirely good thing, but I think that there is a drawback, at least against some opponents. If our opponent is confused, it really is going to make it harder to read his actions.

To put it differently, representing our hand in the "standard" way, with an appropriate amount of aggression, I believe, leads us to relatively predictable options (for better or worse); underpresenting our hand might create more options, but the additional options create additional issues and quandaries.

Maybe it sounds weak to argue that we should take certain actions because it makes life simpler. But aren't we often making the very same type of argument, when we suggest, for example, that someone should have raised, c/r or reraised one street because if helps define the action for the subsequent street?