I've started using the word 'credible'.
Even without proper traps, the idea of getting a runner to run a remote fruitlessly is pretty important. One of the most important things is to make it credible. Putting a card facedown in a remote is not credible with 2 credits. As NBN, it's credible with 3 - because Astro is a big deal. Other corps need higher credit totals to make it a credible threat, as scoring the agenda can do more to hurt their chances of winning than helping.
On the flipside, putting a corp under heavy central pressure can force agendas out and into a remote before they're ready. It's amazing what a Sneakdoor or a Lamprey, or even a load of permanent drip economy, will force out and into the remote. The credibility calculation changes again.
Four points, an Astro token, three credits, and a single advanced card is a very credible threat. But beginners won't know that. That's a tough one.
And sometimes the reaction is not to go for the remote - it's to pound centrals desperately, thinking it's game over unless they win now!
It's very game state sensitive, and very opponent sensitive. Some runners - often those who have been burned too much by corps rushing or FA too often - will push hard to get into a remote when it wrecks their board state. Others fixate on centrals and don't ever want to push past a remote Tollbooth. It's hard and important to identify the general runner strategy, and it's important as a runner to mix it up.
I don't think there is or will ever be a reliable way to manage this sort of thing. It's well known that in poker, randomly including bluffs into your play will improve your returns over never doing so, and all good players add bluffs into their play. That fact that there's a high amount of human interaction and reading your opponent is what makes Netrunner so different to MtG (though perhaps there's a larger amount of hidden information in that game than I understood from my limited play). It also makes it quite fun.