Re: Question on domination
 

"Would you ever say, "Playing 9-8 is dangerous because you might be dominated by AA"

Yes, but maybe it's just me.

Re: Question on domination
 

Hi Tommy:

Suppose a solid player raises in early position, how do you like that AQ now (or KQ, or KJ, etc).?

As we point out in HPFAP, if someone else has raised, you are next, no one else is in, and you are not in the big blind, there are very few hands that you should be calling with. (An exception occurs in loose games.) That is it is almost always right to usually fold and sometimes reraise.

Best wishes,
Mason

So what do we do?
 

Do we define domination through a) only through the 3 or less outs aspect (JJ does dominate Q9) or b) also through shared cards (JJ does not dominate Q9)?

When the flop comes 932, the player with Q9 has 5 and not 3 outs to beat JJ however, so given that, I lean toward version b)

Your opinions?

Re: Question on domination
 

"I think that is faulty usage. Let's look at how the word dominate gets used. "Playing K-J is dangerous in that spot because you might be dominated by KQ, AJ, or AK.""

"Gets used" by whom? If I were offering similar advice, I would write: "Playing K-J is dangerous in that spot because you might be dominated by AA, KK, QQ, JJ, KQ, AJ, or AK."

The shared-card examples are often used because they make it obvious that a hand can appear very close in value to another when, in fact, it's a mile behind.

98 is, of course, dominated by AA. We just don't think of it that way because, most of the time, we don't think of 98 winning by flopping top pair. However, if you ever find yourself playing 98 against AA, and the flop comes 962, the domination will become quickly, and painfully, obvious.

GC