<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Q&amp;A #31: More Waiting for the Turn in a Big Pot</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/qa/qa-31-more-waiting-for-the-turn-in-a-big-pot.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/qa/qa-31-more-waiting-for-the-turn-in-a-big-pot.html</link>
	<description>Training poker players into professional players</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:32:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: T.J.</title>
		<link>http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/qa/qa-31-more-waiting-for-the-turn-in-a-big-pot.html/comment-page-1#comment-207</link>
		<dc:creator>T.J.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:44:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/qa/qa-31-more-waiting-for-the-turn-in-a-big-pot.html#comment-207</guid>
		<description>Ed -

Thanks for commenting on the hand - you bring out some points I did not take into account in my original analysis.  Interesting that you are less a fan of this play than when you published SSHE - always nice to see poker knowledge progress and morph even amongst the &quot;elite.&quot;

I think this is one of those hands that (in words from an old MK 2+2 post), &quot;[if someone is going to hit] on the turn, I&#039;m doomed and there&#039;s not a damn thing I can do about it&quot;

To wit:  using the equity calculations from my original 2+2 post, if MP1 bets the flop, I raise, and Button 3-jacks, MP1 is getting the correct odds to call 2 bets back to him &lt;i&gt;even if he knows his Q outs are dead&lt;/i&gt;.  Plus, from a pragmatic standpoint, a player that plays Q8o for two back to them preflop is not the type to fold when they hit top pair.

At the end of the day, there is absolutely nothing I can do to protect my Aces.  The pot is just too big.

And, as a general comment, I hope your site/blog takes off.  I&#039;m sure I&#039;m not alone in saying that I miss the Ed Miller conribution on 2+2, but I am encouraged to see the frequency of your postings here and hope they continue.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ed -</p>
<p>Thanks for commenting on the hand &#8211; you bring out some points I did not take into account in my original analysis.  Interesting that you are less a fan of this play than when you published SSHE &#8211; always nice to see poker knowledge progress and morph even amongst the &#8220;elite.&#8221;</p>
<p>I think this is one of those hands that (in words from an old MK 2+2 post), &#8220;[if someone is going to hit] on the turn, I&#8217;m doomed and there&#8217;s not a damn thing I can do about it&#8221;</p>
<p>To wit:  using the equity calculations from my original 2+2 post, if MP1 bets the flop, I raise, and Button 3-jacks, MP1 is getting the correct odds to call 2 bets back to him <i>even if he knows his Q outs are dead</i>.  Plus, from a pragmatic standpoint, a player that plays Q8o for two back to them preflop is not the type to fold when they hit top pair.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, there is absolutely nothing I can do to protect my Aces.  The pot is just too big.</p>
<p>And, as a general comment, I hope your site/blog takes off.  I&#8217;m sure I&#8217;m not alone in saying that I miss the Ed Miller conribution on 2+2, but I am encouraged to see the frequency of your postings here and hope they continue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

