[Zag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also wouldn't hate a fold on this flop, but I don't think much of a call. I mean, what are you going to do on the turn when he bets again (which most opponents are going to do)? He could still be on the one-big-club draw, but I can't see calling any more in the hopes that he is firing several bullets. So calling is, to me, just a way of donating, since I don't plan to call again on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have to say I really hate this line of thinking. It's certainly not something that sounds like it's maximising EV, unless it's accepting making enough poor decisions later on.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. My EV evaluation on the flop is this: If I just call, I expect he will fire again, whether for value or with a bluff/semi-bluff, and I will fold. Therefore, just calling is -EV. If I were able to say, with some reliability, 'I think that if I call this, one the turn he will bet he good hands but just check his bluff/semi-bluff most of the time,' then I would call. In this case, I didn't think so.

Note that I was prepared to say: If I raise here, I think he will reraise the strong hands, call the draws, and fold the total bluffs. If he has a draw and it misses on the turn, I believe he will check to me, at which point I can choose either to check behind or continue to pressure.

The line of reasoning has nothing to do with making poor decisions later on. It is recognizing that, later on, I'm going to be forced to make another decision without enough information, and I know how I will choose unless something unexpected happens. What I expect to happen in the future is a big part of my present EV calculation.