Joining recently with RIO has been my first experience coming back to the poker forums in a few years.  Back in the day, there was a lot of hype both for and against the concept of "raising for free showdown".  I think this is an interesting hybrid of the RFFD argument, tho i'm not sure if it's good or bad.  Generally i think the RFFSD argument is a losing one. 

-i think i have better hands that i can make a turn calling range out of , i don't need to include A3 in that range.

-my 333 and K3s will be raising turn, i need to balance them with something

-A3s also has a lot of equity vs the calling range.  It seems like we could argue that this is both good and bad...

On one hand, in the instances where turn bricks and we check back, we win the pot with a "bluff"

On the other hand, if villain knows that my turn bluffraise is A3, he knows that when i do randomize a river bluff, it's with a hand that has a good deal of SD value (guys who posted in my "Balance Riddle" thread will recognize this concept).  It seems bad for my overall range since now he only has to call my river value bets at a frequency that keeps A3s indifferent to betting river (relative to checking and taking it's showdown EV).  

So here are the cliffs that have me torn:

-it seems cool to have a turn bluffraise that has really good EV even when it gives up river.

-it seems detrimental to my overall river betting strategy to plant myself with only bluffing hands that have a significant amount of showdown EV (villain can keep me indifferent to bluffing river while paying my value bets at a significantly lower frequency than if I were using a weaker bluff).  

lets have some fun arguing this one