Hmm. If a game really is a crapshoot, then betting at someone who is unlikely to fold isn't a feeler bet. If you win it is a pot sweetener, if you lose it was avoidable to lose that much. The term feeler bet implies the response is open to intelligent analysis. By definition it won't be in a crapshoot. I mean take something that happened today, 3 see the flop AKx, checked round to me with KTo, so I represent the A, now the guy with KJ who was afraid of the A before I bet is suddenly not afraid after I bet to represent it. Logical? Open to analysis? Nope, a crapshoot is a crapshoot, so you use blunt instruments. (God, listen to me? If only I could take my own advice!
)
But never mind all that, there is something else here I'm not sure about. When I read other analyses on this site, then bets of less than the size of pot on the flop are castigated as weak some of the time, but praised as Tony did the rest of the time. So is there a magic borderline somewhere? You know, 59% of pot is weak, 60% is good, or something of that nature? I've never been clear where the breakpoint is. Or does it just depend on who's side of the argument you are on?
