Originally Posted by c9h13no3
Keep in mind, that even when you give him correct odds to call, you still have a positive expectation. Just because he has odds to call doesn't mean you don't make money. And its not like you can fold a set when the flush card comes, so you may as well just get it in on the flop.
I really dont agree with that.
You are allowing the hand to play out very mechanically for him. If you can either check or call the flop and the flush card comes, you now have enough money behind to play out the hand in a way that allows you to fold (you have also played it in a way that should make him think yiu have a flush... so if he wants to put his money in.. it means he isnt bluffing
By getting cheaply through to the turn, assuming there is no flush card, you can dump your stack in and his call becomes very -EV
By putting stacks in on the flop you race (you are slightly ahead but not much)
Think of it like this, if you held the nut FD and the flop was c-bet by a normal c-betting range opponent, your best move is to put in a healthy re-raise, because if he shoves, you now have more equity in the pot than the cost of the call (assuming 100BB stacks) and our reraise should fold out a large number of hands (his c-bet isnt enough info to place him on specifically a set)
From Tony Angelero's principle of recipricality, if you were to trade places with your opponent and you would play his cards exactly the same way as he would against a player with your range, then you have no resiprical advantage.
From the principle that winning at poker means making fewer mistakes tan your opponent, if you and your opponent were to play out the FD in the same way (get stacks in because the maths is correct) then your opponent has not made a mistake in his play.
So playing sets with 110% agression on the flop, because you fear the FD cannot be correct because it allows your opponent to simply call the shove and not make a mistake.