[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
I simply mean, that I'm not sure it was played correctly. I followed my gut instincts and some not really proven reads and play check/fold on the turn and river with the second best hand. Next time I am wrong and it costs me a lot of money not to bet for value down the road with these hands. So I'm not sure if a good gut instincts can compensate these losses.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you've basically getting at is the two fundamental lines of thinking winning players employ.

The first is to be an averager. This is the method Harrington advocates (since you mentioned him). It relies heavily on hand range math and generally doesn't try to excessively narrow that range. It tends to make lots of "uncertainty calls" and presumed value bets in uncertain circumstances.

The second line of thinking to be a detective - trying to narrow the range of possible hands down as far as possible by logical deduction, and if that still leaves you with a questionable decision, look for additional (thin) information to bias it one way or the other. This line of thinking relies heavily on reads and player history because there's almost never enough info in the betting to definitely determine what your opponent has.

The play you made was fundamentally a detective play, and a VERY good one, but it seems like you wished you had made the averager play and bet the turn (and maybe river).

I think that's the exact wrong mental road to take. Most top players are detectives, not averagers. I am as well, although I'm not a top tier player. I believe the detective approach is fundamentally stronger because when you get the right info you can make absolutely sick plays. However, sometimes there's just not enough info to be a detective, and that's where averaging still has value.

I know you're upset about this hand for some reason, but I think it's a good candidate for a "When I knew I could play" hand.