Poker (was Re: NLP)

[Paul Makepeace]

On 9/18/07, Nigel Rantor <wiggly at wiggly.org> wrote:
> Zach Vonler wrote:
> > On 9/18/07, Paul Makepeace <paulm at paulm.com> wrote:
> >> Here's another that is a bit less than obvious. You've got 78 and the
> >> board come 783 giving you two pair. I have JJ. At this point you think
> >> you're looking pretty good.
> >
> > Why did the player holding 78 pay to see the flop, given the raise the
> > player holding JJ should have made?
>
> *grin*
>
> who knows, maybe he (JJ) was UTG and had 7 people behind him and only
> limped or min-raised?

Even if JJ substantially raised (which is a debatable move in any
case), a multi-way pot might be giving correct odds for 78 to call in
late position. As CJ said connectors can prove dangerous if a
coordinated board falls. I played 75d the a few nights back and the
flop was 86J, turn came 4 and I re-raised QQ all-in and broke him.
Sunday heads-up I won with 85o with a 88x5 board.

The point of the original story tho' was that most people holding two
pair wouldn't necessarily connect that the board low-pairing could
break their hand to an overpair.

P

> so, are we going to get an LPM poker night together or what?
>
>    n
>