Cliffs notes for above post:

If a PASSIVE player lead into you on the turn AND YOU INTEND ON CALLING THE river, just raise the turn instead. This way you can elect not to take the free showdown and bet when you improve, winning another bet.

Stox like doing this with no outs, because he doesn't have odds to call for a draw and can therefore easily fold to a three bet. In our games, the pot is usually so big getting raised is not a disaster. Therein lies the main difference. Fold equity is an additional advantage for both situations, but is not the main reason for the play in either case.

having not read WTHG, i can say that I find it difficult to understand it's reasoning...

1) if you really believe your opponent is bluffing, I'm thinking that instead of raising, we should just calll and let him bluff into us again on the river and hit him there...my example would be: If we have 2nd pair and are HU against an agressive player on the turn...if we give him 50% chance of bluffing, but we know he'll fold to a raise (because he is bluffing) isn't there more money to be made to give him the chance to bluff again on the river and raise there? especially if a brick hits which makes it more likely he'll try his bluff again.

2) I think it's obvious that if we can get our opponent to fold a better hand, then it s coup. Since that's the only way we're going to win the hand. The problem with this is that if we raise the turn and end up taking the free showdown because a brick hits (better hand folded to turn raise) yet we still win because somebody else was just betting the FD we showdown 2nd pair...how many times would it take before people to. Obviously, an intelligent person would state that this you have to alter your plays occassionally duh...the problem I see is that unless you're up against decent players (which I haven't seen at my tables), then odds are against a better hand folding unless you hit your draw and it's obvious and the pot is small. In these cases, isn't it wiser to call the turn and get the cheap river card and go from there after we see what it is?

3) Biggest problem I see with #3 is I don't think it'd take too long for people to notice that we're capable of raising the turn and folding to a three bet before everybody starts reraising on the turn? I know this go against what I said earlier about people paying attention, but even a dunce will notice that you raised him on the turn, but folded to his reraise...If we're capable of doing this regardless of pot size (which WTHG doesn't mention in this quote), we're going to see 3 bets a lot more frequently and be forced to fold what could be the best hand because I think even average players will start 3betting to you on the turn as a semi-bluff because it's worth the extra bet to get you to fold what could be a better hand...Since that's the case, we'll be forced to call the 3 bet (especiallly if the pot is large and it will be after this round) and that gives him a chance to bluff again on the river (which at this point, we'll have to call because of pot size).

I guess my main point on #3 is that if we raised the turn and fold to a 3bet (because we don't have many outs) it's going to make future decisions at this table tougher instead of easier. While it may have been a good fold, the odds of somebody bluffing into us with a 3 bet in the future is more likely (especially if we fold to the 3 bet more then once with regulars sitting at the table.

I think the main point of all this rambling is that WTHG conditions for the free showdown play seem to make future play at the table tougher instead of easier. While growlers conditions seem to be more geared towards the type of tables we (online players) usually sit at. They also seem to make future play easier instead of tougher...

Ok, I'm ready to be shown where my thinking is mistaken so I can improve my play