Had to reinstall wordpress.

Suppose you’re playing at a 8 handed table, 2/4 with 1 ante.

First player raises to 20.  Second player raises to 50.  Third player raises to 150.

You’re 4th player, and you have 500 in front.  You look down, and you have AQ.

What do you do?

Analysis

AQ is really problematic here.  You could easily be dominated by AK, and you’re only a coin-flip against any pair.

For me, I’d have to lay down AQ here.  If I call, and assuming 1st and 2nd player folds, the pot will be 370.  I’d have 350 left.  If the other player bets up to 100, I’d have to call.  But if I call the 100 bet, the pot would then be 570, and I’d have 270 left.  I’d be pot committed.

Furthermore, if an Ace comes out, I’d probably be dominated.  If a Q doesn’t come out, I’m behind against any pair.  It’s a really bad situation.

Big pots require big hands.  So, I’d have to fold.

When did show start again with Season 6?  Time to catchup on the episodes, http://bluff.com/blogs/high-stakes-full-episodes.

I don’t know why I torture myself with this.

So, remember when I was speculating on what Nicole Johnson was saying with the Invisible Woman:

According to her analogy, is the family and the husband suppose to be the cathedral that women are building for God? Is that the correlation? If so, then isn’t she implying that the outcome is solely the woman’s responsibility, since cathedrals can’t build themselves?

I found the excerpt from her book, The Invisible Woman: When Only God Sees.

In the excerpt, Nicole states:

As mothers, we are building great cathedrals. We cannot be seen if we’re doing it right. And one day, it is very possible that the world will marvel, not only at what we have built, but at the beauty that has been added to the world by the sacrifices of invisible women.

So, I did read her analogy correctly. Women are the builders and the family is the cathedral. A very interesting, if not very socially conservative, perspective.

Her phrase, “And one day, it is very possible that the world will marvel, …”, concerns me.  Her sentence structure clarifies the pronoun “we” to mean “invisible women”, and by “women”, she means “mothers”. So, Nicole puts the responsibility of raising the family squarely on the wife’s shoulders. Is that really what she believes?

Furthermore, Nicole says, “We cannot be seen if we’re doing it right.”

I don’t even know what to say regarding that. If a mother is being a good mother, she should even be seen? I understand sacrificing for your family, and your sacrifices might not be noticed.

But, “We cannot be seen if we’re doing it right”?  I guess that’s why she said:

When I really think about it, I don’t want my son to tell the friend he’s bringing home from college for Thanksgiving, “My mom gets up at 4 in the morning and bakes homemade pies, and then she hand bastes a turkey for three hours and presses all the linens for the table.” That would mean I’d built a shrine or a monument to myself.

I guess in her logic, any acknowledgment of her sacrifice would mean that she’s not sacrificing. And since the cathedral must be a work of sacrifice, therefore the wife cannot receive any acknowledgment.

So according to Nicole, as a mother, if you’re seen, you’re doing it wrong.