[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not much of a fan of the theory that there are "correct" or "incorrect" moves in poker. I see where you are with this hypothetical. You can also set up a hypothetical in which raising gave villain the odds for a "correct" call if he bricked 4th and then goes on to win the hand. Even Sklansky doesn't suggest always raising 3rd, after all, and on this short board the chance that villain has a brick in the hole is higher than normal.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's understandable that you would chafe at the terms "correct" and "incorrect" for plays in a poker game, because that implies a concrete definition of right and wrong, which may not always be true. They really mean "+EV" and "-EV" but saying "correct" and "incorrect" instead is just part of poker-speak at this point, so I would try to get used to it. If you're at least a decent player and a villain completes 3rd st. in a position they would likely steal from, then the more +EV play is to raise them. It won't work out better every time, but what play does?

This brings up another interesting point about the suggestion that by manipulating the pot size and keeping it small, hero can profit by the villain's mistake if villain will call 4th st when the cards break badly for him. While it is often an incorrect call (-EV) for the villain without proper pot odds, it represents a very small amount of +EV for the hero. If the hero can gain more information on 3rd st by raising, or can induce the villain to make bigger mistakes on later streets, hero may gain a LARGER EV by raising even if it prevents the villain from making one kind of "incorrect" play on 4th st.