[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. The reason is that with 99 you're *ALWAYS* seeing the flop from this position, so your $2 to complete is a de facto pot contribution (proper use of latin phrase?). Therefore, the raising question is only a matter of the $3 above the de facto $2.

In a blind steal, you're not presuming the $2 is already pot-ward bound, so you need to consider the whole chunk of $5 all at once.