Quote Originally Posted by piratepeaty
My point is, the information you get from a 'feeler' bet is not reliable unless your opponent is extremely predictable. Even then, sometimes your opponent may suprise you.

And if you're calling me an idiot, you might as well call David Sklansky an idiot as well. Theory of Poker says "consider any information gained [by raising] as an extra benefit of a raise you are making for other reasons." I whole-heartedly agree.

I know that 'feeler bets' exist. I know that people bet to "see where they are". Personally, I think it is a huge waste of money. I'm happy to say that raising or betting strictly for information is NOT in my poker arsenal.
I fail to see the consistency in the argument here. You start off with a feeler bet than talk about TOP and raising, than return to a feeler bet.

HOH has a section pertaining to probe bets and seeing where he stands. It's obviously in Harrington's arsenal and I'm in no position to argue with him.

I can go along with not raising to see where you are at, but I don't think a probe bet is neccessarily a waste of money. To each their own.

Although now that I rethink the situation my likehood of a probe bet when more than two others see the flop is almost not existant. If I bet in that situation my intentions lean more towards limiting the field.