Pay to see?

[TCeNTuRioN]

Never, every time we pay to see, are we not reading all the streets played!!!! GL All

 

[pirateglenn]

I rarely ever pay to see, i am more invested in my opponents actions leading up to that point or if its immediate - as others have said, factoring in many things, position, equity, tourney position, blinds, effective stacks - basically value.
Some hands play themselves so regardless of their action - focus on my action, is my hand range worth a call, is their range open or are they known to be a premium players or a pocket pair player that set mines (we all do this) but betting patterns give a lot away at the table.

 

[ninocabral]

It really depends on the situation, in some cases I think it's a good idea to see what range of hands your opponent is playing with.

 

[Sschafell]

It will depend on the spot, who we're playing against, and what their stack size is; it will depend on several factors.

 

[GrannySmit77]

I fully agree, but it depends on the situation. In cash games sometimes I pay with a losing hand just to see what types of hands the other player plays. Or to pick up some information- for instance, if he's bluffing. Obviously, it also depends how much I have to pay to see his hand. In a tournament it's also important to see what hands the other player plays, in order to put him on a range or to see if he has any poker tells.

 

[danshu01]

At lower stakes, I feel like you can often figure out player tendencies without needing to make marginal calls just for information. I prefer to call only if I think there’s enough value in the hand itself, and treat the information as a bonus.

 

[Toruk Makto]

It's not always necessary! 😉

 

[TeUnit]

Depends on if its +EV.

How many outs? Size of the pot? Size of the bet? Effective BBs? ICM considerations?

 

[diegovasques90]

I have a habit of paying to see and most of the time I lose.

 

[bodil19982]

This gives you a lot of insight into who you're playing with. It's a bit unfair to have such a feature.