Some observations on the three most common logical pitfalls in which i see. The first point is the attempt to represent something. His actions are adapted to look like what he thinks would be the behavior of one who has just connected with a certain aspect of the board. The problem is that impressions are only effective when we know how they will be interpreted.
In the second instance is to bet because you think you're ahead. Well, the bet must serve some purpose. Alternatively, that bet could be for protection if we think that by, betting, we can cause villain to fold a sizable chunk of his
hands that have live outs against us.
Another fact that we can analyze is the thought that nothing has changed. This is because it comes down to an error in the player's poker language. In fact, such a judgment is often quite devoid of evidence and you would be well advised to doubt a player's ability. In reality, such a judgment is often completely unsupported by evidence.