Poker (was Re: NLP)

[Paul Makepeace]

On 9/21/07, Nigel Rantor <wiggly at wiggly.org> wrote:
> 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.

I was agreeing with you and adding weight to what you'd already said.
Even tho' what you're discussing is past the beginner error territory
I think we started out in.

Glad we have that cleared up ;) Back to the felt...

Go Europe! http://www.worldseriesofpoker.com/news/article.asp?newsID=1851


P