Poker (was Re: NLP)

[Nigel Rantor]

Paul Makepeace wrote:
> 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.

I wasn't disagreeing. I was pointing out that you can't talk 
intelligently about it because discussing hands alone doesn't make much 
sense. It's not the whole picture. Relative stack sizes, position, and 
the action that's already happened have a bearing on the decision.

   n