Originally Posted by JKDS

I think you are thinking about this incorrectly. While it is true that these situations exist, there really isnt a concrete answer to them. How you play a hand, regardless of what hand it is, should be based on a number of things that you need to acquire while playing the game. Things like effective stack size, the opponents range, how the opponent plays that range, how likely the range connects with the flop, how much fold equity we have, weather our equity with overs is actually enough to continue, what villain perceives our range to be and how we play it, what level of player we have, etc. Its impossible to actually say "in situation 3 i would do this" because there are a ridiculous number of situation 3's who's reactions would vary according to which specific situation 3 we were talking about.

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

He knows all this. Just because he is a new poster doesn't mean he's clueless. To me this looks like more of a thinking exercise based on the limited information that is given. Usually in poker we have to deal with limited information, so a post like this would be great to digest and think about when you are facing unknowns.

First of all, he explicitly says: Question: what information would you like to know about the Villain in determining whether to fold, check, or raise, and how will you use that information?
I think he is looking for an answer that includes what information you would like to know about the villain in determining whether to fold. He is asking us as the respondents to initiate discussion and to list things we would like to know.

You said yourself these situations exist, and there isn't a concrete answer to them, which is exactly why you weren't given concrete information in the first place. There would be no point of discussion if the answer was written on a piece of paper and dangled in front of our face. So can we please show some respect to someone who is posting a topic for the purpose of initiating discussion that can lead to some good debate and not just asking 'what do I do with the nuts'. Of course there will be multiple answers, and of course repsonses will be general and may have to think up some situations that their answer will apply to. But if I'm not mistaken - I think that's the point. He didn't give us a hand history with detailed stats on a villian because there wouldn't be a point in posting something where the answer is right in front of your face. If there are multiple scenerios for each situation, I think Law is leaving it for respondents to discuss them because he knows that everything in poker is dependent on an infinite number of factors.