> On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, skzb wrote: > > #It's actually more often the other way around: trying to represent that you > #have the best possible hand (technically called "the nuts") by betting > #strongly into the guy who actually has it. I have learned that, in the > #long-run, this is not a money-making venture. > > "Betting into" = "betting against"? > Hmmm....sort of. If I bet into you, it means that I make (rather than call) the bet, and often implies that, for some reason, I am betting into you in poarticular, as opposed to just making a bet. If we're heads-up (the only two people in the hand) then it is obvious. If there are still others in the hand, but, throughout the hand, you have been the aggressor (ie, the one showing strength by making bets and raises) then it could also be said that I am betting into you when I make a bet, even though, perhaps, there are others who can act between us. Does that make sense?