[Todd Terry]

This is an area where I think my results have gotten worse as my analysis has gotten better. When I first started playing, unless I was getting laid a ridiculous price, I basically played under the rule, if I think I'm beat, I fold. When I called in violation of that rule, I was usually shown a winner. Now, I attempt to quantify the strength of my belief I'm beat, and if it's less than the pot odds, make a crying call. It seems like I invariably get shown a winner. IMO, there's a balance to be struck between trusting your "instincts" (which I try to base on objective evidence rather than "feelings") while at the same time realizing that you're probably not right as often as you think you are and allowing this margin of error to influene your decisions to call on the river. The correct balance is somewhere between Phil Hellmuth and Daniel Negreanu.

I agree with Eagles that there seems to be an overemphasis on absolute rather than relative hand strength in many of the hands discussed on this form.