Implied odds question: Am I paying too much when behind?

[jonnyUCB]

In crosse91's post entitled "Set on a 3-flush flop". There was a sub-discussion regarding limping versus raising pocket 9s when first to enter.. I think it was in MP.

Anyway, the debate has been milled over time and time again but I am wondering how everyone calculates their money invested vs possible implied odds. Many people state they'd rather limp and pay for a raise with pkt 9s, as it pays less to draw.

Say in a 200NL game I open for $8 and get raised to $23 from LP with a $200 stack. Everyone folds to me so I have to pay $15 to win a piece of ~35. This is 2:1 effectively, so I must make up about $80 in value if I am to make this call, correct? Or is it that I've paid 23 to see the flop and must make it up with his whole stack?

Another similar situation is when I lead with draws, and get raised (happens a lot). I will usually call to see the turn, often getting 4:1 on my decision (perfect effective odds). But this discounts the fact that I've already lead for a 2/3 PSB.

Am I paying too much to draw here? Especially when OOP? Should I be check/calling my draws when theres a good chance I'll get raised behind me?

[gulebjorn]

Cmon, you know the answer to this:

it depends.

Is it a loose/tight table? Has the pot been opened? If limps before you, who is this guy? Who's left to act behind you? Is your postflop play good enough to play 99 unimproved in a raised pot? And so on...