Thought vs. Action - which doth a good or bad play make?

[de-coder]

making up a hand that meats the criteria is harder than it looks, obviously seat4 folded twice which is something David Copperfield might pull off...

Anyway -

<elaboration>
Seat3's motive for going all-in is that he thinks he's going to win more than 50% of the time and figures that good enough to risk all his chips. That assumption is incorrect and I believe that incorrect assumption makes the all-in move a bad play.

Now, if seat3 moves all-in because he figures the following:
- seat4 will definately fold again
- he has a really good drawing hand, but he knows he's behind
- seat1 is a very passive player who has mostly been folding while the bubble works itself out
- seat6 is very loose/passive
- he expects to take the pot right here, but knows that if he does get a call he's got a good draw and he won't be knocked out

If seat3 reasons all that out and makes the move, now it's a good move - solid play and all that.
</elaboration>

Obviously this doesn't apply to all hands. Many hands play themselves (AA vs KK - everybody is all-in pre-flop and that's it...). Many hands the correct choice is quite obvious (unless you're mentally impaired...). What really has me thinking now are hands where the correct choice is not so obvious, the marginal options. And what has really caught my fancy is this idea that the thought process behind a good play might be wrong, and that makes the good play actually a bad play.

And I think this is why... If you make the right play for the wrong reason the play might work out, but the wrong reason is going to stick with you for the next time, and the time after that, and so on, and so on... If that reasoning is true then there's more to a good play than simply the right action - you have to have the right reasoning as well or the action is nothing more than a fortunate accident.