[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My problem with raising here, even raising a lot, is I will likely have multiple callers and likely miss the flop. Also, I would not say there is nearly that high a chance I have the best hand since I am behind all pairs, and players with pairs are not folding at this level in my (limited) experience. If I raise, there is a good chance they won't fold postflop, either, so I am left in a tough spot if I miss since a continuation is not very effective here, but if I hit I could easily stack someone with a middling pair (less chance if I hit the ace).

So basicly, if I am raising I am only raising to clean up my hand for those times I hit and to get people mentally committed to the pot. I do this some times but I think complete here for 5 is fine, too.



[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I have a feeling that I will not be able to convince everyone that most of the discussion in this thread is rubbish... so I will just make a brief comment here.

Thinking about poker in the above way is very uncreative and limits your ability to play well from the blinds.

"I don't want to raise because nobody will fold anyhow, and I'm behind all pairs, and a continuation bet won't work..." is a poisonous line of thought. When a hand like this comes along for me in the SB, I would be more likely to think "I have the best hand, I am going to raise, and if somebody calls I am likely to get chips from them whether I hit the flop or not."

Blind play is crucial in SNGs, and I'm glad that this hand got me to think about it some more. I will either start a thread on blind play philosophy or post some hands similar to this one, but played very differently.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I think evidence is an excellent idea, rather than vague philosophical attacks on concrete statements, based on experience, made by posters that I (at least) respect.

If you can provide such evidence, please accept my apologies for spewing so much "rubbish" and "poison" into this thread.