[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that there are other draws, this was merely to show how in many situations this concept is incorrect, and since generally when you say draw these are the two that come to mind first, I felt I'd expand on these. Had he said weaker draws his statement would have been more correct, but merely putting out the generic statement of draws causes a concept that is correct at some times and incorrect at others to be applied to all, that is what I was trying to clear up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if we're to be most clear, we should go back to the book and the context of the statement, which is that *one* of the reasons to raise would be to make an opponent make a mistake by calling when there are not proper odds to do so.
This is independent of a "strong" or "weak" draw - it is only related to making it a mistake. It can be a "strong" draw with less than sufficient pot/implied odds, or a "weak" draw with less than sufficient pot/implied odds.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as your comment on flush draws, circumstances under which you shouldn't continue on your flush draw on the flop are rare, and pretty much never considering the large multiway pots that make up most online games.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it's not never, especially in the context of the book, which is mostly mid to highish limit games that make up the bulk of the book's hand examples. Certainly, I have folded flush draws because I didn't have the pot odds in some of the games I've played in. But that's not really the point. The point is that you shouldn't play by general principles like "never fold a flush draw". You should play by general principles like "fold if you don't have the pot/implied odds to continue". (Obviously this is more complicated if bluffing or table image are taken into account, but the fundmental idea is here.)