[Andy B]

I wasn't talking about this hand, but the Ten wasn't the bring-in. Chris Daddy was (9 < 10), and he brought it in for the full bet. I probably would have brought it in for the minimum myself, but I would have done so with the intention of calling a completion. I have no problem with Daddy's having brought it in for a full bet with what was likely the best hand.

I was responding to your assertion that if it were a full game, he would have folded. Laying aside the fact that this wasn't an option in this case, I'm saying that there is no reason to fold decent pairs for the bring-in in a full game with passive opponents, which your typical $5/10 players are. Even if there are over-cards behind you, two Nines is going to be the best hand around the table more often than not. In your typical $5/10 game, you will get to see fifth and even sixth street for your initial $2 investment. Many $5/10 players will pay you off the whole way if you catch another Nine, and this is the primary reason that I say that if you're routinely folding in this spot, you're leaving money on the table.

If I'm reading your last sentence right, if you had (99)A you'd advocate folding if there were a couple of face cards to act behind you because if you hit your Ace the pair will be exposed? I'd need a damned good reason to fold this hand on third street, and that would have to come in the form of a raise or two. I raise myself with this hand more often than not. It's nice when you make Aces-up and you show no pair, but it's even nicer when you make a set of Nines and show no pair.