Splitting the difference

I know a limit holdem player named Bob. Bob never knows the right thing to do. He also doesn't like to think about it very much.

Bob has read some books, and he knows that aggressive play is best. He knows that most of the time he really ought to be either raising or folding, but he has a really hard time making up his mind on which one to do when the decision is close. He can raise with the nuts, he can fold with crap, but in between he's not sure, and he doesn't want to take a lot of time to think it through, because he figures if he thinks a lot it will tell people he has a marginal hand.

So instead, Bob calls. Bob calls a lot. He calls when he should be raising. He calls when he should be folding. He figures, if he's not sure, why not choose the middle path?

The problem is, the middle path is wrong a lot. One of the things about limit holdem is that there are a lot of times when raising and folding are both better plays than calling would be. Bob has the perception of calling being a compromise, but most of the time it's a much worse choice than going one way or the other.

Bob sees calling as a middle ground, but he doesn't stop to analyze whether his middle ground is somewhere worth standing at all.

Don't be Bob.