This might be a dumb question...

[beyazkus]

* g *

ok, the raise is definitely an option here but not for value... you have 8 outs to complete your straight and 1 out (miller et al uses 1.5 out for backdoor flush draws, but abdul jalib uses the more concervative 1 out) for a backdoor flush draw which you can easily discount due to the low value of your 9... so you have 8 outs twice, which means your equity in the pot is 31.5% which makes you a worse underdog than 2-1! (just to clarify you would actually need 14 outs twice against one op, and 9 outs twice against 2 op to be a favorite.) even if you knew that the SB would call you would be an underdog, but your raise has a high probability of knocking him out...

so then why raise? first to buy the button, second to get a free card on the turn if you miss, or gain some fold equity if a scare card comes on the turn such as a k or q, meaning that your op will have a higher probablity of folding if you bet on the turn after your raise on the flop...

then again you could just call the flop, hope that sb calls too and see if you hit... you don't have quite the necessary pot odds, but implied odds seem to justify a call...

[beyazkus]

the sin of not putting your op on a range of hands... I presumed that he had a pair that I couldn't beat by pairing any two of my hole cards, not taking into account that they both were overcards. it is correct to presume your two overcards account for additional outs of 3 (miller et al) which seems to be a good estimate as you have to discount them because a pair of 8s or 9s may not make the winning hand... with 11 outs twice a 40% equity seems reasonable... to be able to raise for value with a bettor and a potential caller you must able to estimate that he will call behind around 60% or more, with the assumption that he will not raise... in this case that estimation cannot be made thus a raise for value is out of the question...

ps. for those who wonder how I came up with the 60% figure, I used a non mathematical graphical analysis in which I pinpointed equity percentages relative to calling percetanges. assuming a linear corelation which is exceptable for my rough estimate the 60% figure was reached... a mathematical calculation is obviously better, but I found it difficult to build the formula... I leave it to the experts to find the exact figure...