Another comment on that Sklansky/Miller article.

Previously I discussed an example they give where they recommend a check/raise bluff on the river as being more effective than a straight out bluff. While it's true that a check/raise bluff is more often effective (it shows more strength) it also puts more money at risk and it's not clear it's the better choice. The example they use to "prove" the effectiveness seems very contrived.

But, there was something else about their example that bothered me. They missed a chance to pick up the pot on the turn.

Here's the hand. You have 5s 4s in the big blind and get a free look at a flop of Qs 9s 2h. It's you, the small blind, and a mid-position limper.

The small blind checks and you bet your flush draw, betting 30 into a $90 pot. The limper calls.

Now I think it gets interesting. An Ac hits the turn. Not only does this add 3 outs to your hand, it's likely a scare card for the limper. Few players will limp from mid position with a hand that has an Ace. Some will, but for the most part hands with an Ace are either brought in with a raise or are folded. So, it's unlikely the limper has an Ace, and if you doesn't he'll fear you do. I think you should bet here, your hand got better both with the additional outs and with the scare card value of the turn card. Sklansky and Miller suggest a check without any explanation.

Any comments? Anybody agree with me? Disagree with me?