[marchron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assume the BB and all of the limpers will always call. If I raise, I'm investing $5 more to get $12 more into the pot. So, in a way, I'm giving myself 12-5 or 2.4-1 "odds" on the raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be correct if you was going to either raise or fold, but it's between call or raise, so you only count the odds you're getting on the $3 raise.

[ QUOTE ]

Now let's instead pretend that we're playing some bizarre structure where I post a live $5 blind but it still remains $3 to call preflop. If I "raise," I'm only putting in another $1 to get the same $12 into the pot, giving myself 12-1 "odds." In theory, it would be then profitable to raise with anything I'd be willing to take 12-1 odds on to strictly call.

Am I making the slightest bit of sense at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but doesn't really relate to the actual hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay. I've been known to talk out of my ass before, but less since I've been on my diet and quit eating at Taco Bell.

I was working from a similar concept as to why I don't steal from the SB as often at 3/6, because I have to invest $5 to win $4. Obviously it's not totally analagous, since in a steal I'm banking on folding equity more than pot equity in this example, but I thought maybe the $5-to-raise concept would make it similar enough.