[ QUOTE ]
A couple of corrections:

[ QUOTE ]
As it stands, he has 9+8-2 outs to what has to be the nuts!

[/ QUOTE ]

On the flop he has the bottom end of the OESD and an 8-high flush draw. Neither of these is to the nuts.

[ QUOTE ]
your correct raise and all the calls made the pot odds a no brainer for him to CALL, which he did instead of raising again.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pot odds were right to call, but the number of players that were pot-committed on the flop gave him enough pot EQUITY to make a raise the right play.

[ QUOTE ]
Your cap is not necessarily a bad play, if you hate money

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp...'nuff said.

The rest of your post is spot-on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks - I then read the other posts and decided to do the math on the turn cap and quickly found my mistake. With 4 outs to the boat, he could have raised the riv AFTER making 9s or 2s full. 2 for 1 on the turn cap doesn't support the 4 outer.

I did mis-use the term "nuts" as there are only 2 outs to it here, shoulda said "made hand".

As to the pot equity, while I agree with your reasoning, I have a damn hard time 3 betting OOP. I'm going to keep this point on my notepad and see if I'm leaking opportunity here. Thanks again for the corrections.

AB