[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I could sum my flop check up by quoting a couple lines from PNLHE:

1. Good players plan ahead to avoid tough decisions.

2. Avoid being threatened with an all-in when you aren't committed but want to see a show down.

How can we allow him to give us a tough decision? How can we allow him to threaten us with an all in?

Bet.

How can we avoid a tough decision here? How can we avoid being threatened with an all in since we're not committed and want to be at showdown?

Check.

Does it cost us much to check? Not at all. The value we miss if he called the flop can easily be made up and more by inducing bets from weaker hands. Free cards are almost a mute point here, so we're giving up little there as well.

Also, if we bet, we can expect him to make the correct response about 90% of the time.

"Bad nl players make things easy on their opponents by making plays to which the expected response is also the correct response. Bad players also don't plan ahead, and they wander into traps set by their opponents."

I'm a very active stealer in this game. If I were in the sb against me, I could have plenty of 9s. Also, pps and other hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone have any thoughts on what I laid out here?

In my mind, this hand shows the difference between limit thinking and nl thinking on the flop.

My hand is good here a very high percentage of the time, but that doesn't mean we bet, like we do in limit every time here. We have to think about planning this hand around commitment.

I went golfing this morning and thought a bit more about this hand. And I'm still convinced I played it well - results aside. I'd love to be proven wrong; however, I've not seen any logic spelled out to make me change my mind.