Is QJs playable UTG?

In the games that you personally play in, do you play hands like QJs, Qts, JTs, J9s UTG?


I ask this because I have often seen posts from fellas whose opinions I highly respect saying that they would not play these hands UTG.


Personally, I play it almost every time and sometimes with a raise depending on my feel for the situation at that precise time.


I am not aware of any poker authority (with the possible exception of Mike Caro) who advocates routinely mucking these hands up front. I am pretty sure S&M play these hands but perhaps, they could cast their vote here and clarify their views.


IMO, these hands, assuming you play well postflop, should be moneymakers themselves. But even if they were close to being just break-even, they must indirectly increase your profits on other hands that you do limp in UTG with eg. 77,88,99, KQ offsuit or suited, AJ offsuit or suited. In fact, I would think that if you don't play QJs etc up front, your early limp can mean nothing other than AJ,KQ,77,88,99. If the flop comes Q54 and you bet, not only do I know you have top pair, I also know your kicker.


As it is, I get the feeling that my limps UTG are pretty readable. If I start to dump these suited hands, I'll be an open book.


Anyway, I look forward to your comments.

It depends on the game of course. To play these hands under the gun, the game needs to be loose and passive. You want to limp with a high probability of seeing a flop for no raise with several other limpers.


Sometimes, in a very tight game, you can open for a raise with these hands, but don't make it a habit.


If the game has even one or two tough aggressive players behind you, I would think twice about opening under the gun with these hands (either limping or raising).


So, in practice, I rarely play these hands under the gun because the game is rarely so good that I can get away with it. BTW, KQo is in the same category for me. Unless the game is great, I muck it under the gun.


natedogg

Yes, SKP, I play this (and raise sometimes UTG). The game has to be maniacal for me not to. Sometimes I don't play 77 if the game is tight.


J9s is a different story. So is QTs. I play the latter more than the former, but will dump both in tougher games.


I agree, if people dump all these hands they will so rarely play a hand up front they should always raise UTG. I think this almost has to be sub - optmial. Some games I dump AJo, almost always play KQo.


Dan Z.

I very rarely limp if I'm the first one in.

If you limp and raise you might want to look at abduls balancing strategy at posev.com

My own opinion is that you need to occasionally

raise with weak hands such as j9s or 44 in early

posisition to balance rather than balance with

medium strength hands, in order to leave some doubt when rags flop and you bet the flop.

I dont start playing the hands you mention until

3rd or 4th posisition and i come in with a raise.

Again your game might be passive enough where

those hands are okay, so I dont think there is

really anything way out of line, but my main

point to you skp would be to be careful about always limping with your weaker hands and raising with your strong hands. I would hope you are mixing it up. good luck

Sid:


I play in the same game, of course (though lately variance has been kicking me in the teeth!)


I agree with your points except: calling with KQo and AJ either suited or off. KQ I'd dump, and I'd likely raise with the AJ. The AJ is more of a value bet than to limit the field (hah!) although it will knock out some of the goofier hands (again, hah!). But KQ? I've never been accused of playing too tight, but there's a first for everything.


Murray

Like you, I used to know people who's play I greatly respected, that wouldn't be caught dead with any of these hands in early position. After a period of trying to pattern myself after their play and hand selection, I have since arrived at my own opinion about these hands. I will now play all of these hands in a typical game. As the game becomes more aggressive, AND with better players, AND with shorter-handed pots, I'll eliminate the J9s and QTs. In very tough games I eliminate the JTs and QJs as well.

skp wrote:

"IMO, these hands, assuming you play well postflop, should be moneymakers themselves."


Agreed. J9s might be pushing it except against the loosest-passivist of games.


"But even if they were close to being just break-even, they must indirectly increase your profits on other hands that you do limp in UTG with eg. 77,88,99, KQ offsuit or suited, AJ offsuit or suited. In fact, I would think that if you don't play QJs etc up front, your early limp can mean nothing other than AJ,KQ,77,88,99."


Yipe! This is what the limp-reraise is for, friend. At various times, the Holiday Inn crowd (before they read me the Tresspass Act) has seen me limp in with AA, QJs, A6s...any of those hands that win more than fair share in big, loose fields. If we are talking about tight-tough games in Las Vegas, I defer to the others. If we are talking about the HI, QJs is frequently a jamming hand when 8 guys are coming in and 6 of them have almost random hands.


On AJ and KQ, I prefer to raise UTG if I have any chance of stealing the blinds. In a very loose game where people cold-call with cheese, I also raise. I call if it's the type of game where people are very loose for 1 bet preflop but much tighter for 2 bets. Maybe I'm a fish, but I think those who dump AJ UTG are pretty dang tight, and those who toss KQ probably a little too tight as well.


"If the flop comes Q54 and you bet, not only do I know you have top pair, I also know your kicker."


Hehe, I hope you're not the guy holding KQ if our hypothetical opponent limps in with the bullets on this flop. You put him on QJs -- he puts you on a 5-outer.


"As it is, I get the feeling that my limps UTG are pretty readable. If I start to dump these suited hands, I'll be an open book."


As little as I need good local players like you mixing up your preflop play, that's the best solution to your dilemma, imo.

1) I play QJs every time. I play J9s and QTs if the game is loose enough (i.e. about 80% of the time in the Taj 10-20 game).


2) I think a lot of posters post that they play tighter than they really do. For example, on RGP a player recently posted that he played Q9s for the first time ever for advertising. Well, I've seen this particular player, and I can assure you that he plays Q9s routinely, and when he really goes on tilt (which is quite often) he plays Qxs. For some reason, people think its macho to post that they play tight, even when its tighter than they should play.

I am curious Nattedog, and all of the rest of you. These type of hands, are they playable in a game for exmple my regular game.


The stakes alternate Between 20-40 and 30-60.


There is usually 4 strong players and 6 gamblers. Average of 5-6 people seeing the flop, but the catch is 99% of the time it is raised. (calling 90 cold in this game is habit for most of the gamblers.)


I as because you said loose passive is the best game to play these in, but this game is VERY loose And Semi aggressive. (Most flops are seen for 2 bets or more..come to think of it, I did not play one hand last night that was not 2 bet at least...lol)


Just curious. BTW I would absolutly play Q-Js UTG in the game SKP is describing. and probaly J-10s,and K-Js.

I play essentially only $15/$30, $20/$40, and $30/$60, and I can tell you categorically that if I am UTG in a typical game, I will not play any of the hands you have mentioned, with one exception:


I will limp with QJs about 20% of the time, depending on the texture of the game and what I've been showing down in the recent past. If my table image could use a boost, why not?


But otherwise, I hate all of the hands you mention. I muck A/J unsuited UTG. I don't see the point in playing this hand out of position for 2 bets (most pots are raised, right?).


I muck a good number of my UTG hands after I see my first card. That's to say, if I see a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, I don't even bother looking at my second card. I ain't playing.


Too tight? I don't think so. Throw 'em a curve every now and again, and I think it's prudent.


Seems to work, anyway.

In the game you describe (99% raised before the flop) QJs is patently unplayable when under the gun. I mean, it's not even close. The other hands such as KQo, KJo, KJs, J9s are also clear candidates for the mayor of muck city.


In the game you describe, these hands can be worth a RE-raise when you have late position (especially vs. those who play aggressively in late position too). But when UTG, you are at such a disadvantage it's not really worth it to play them.


you said: . BTW I would absolutly play Q-Js UTG in the game SKP is describing


I just reviewed his post and I can't find a description of the game anywhere.


natedogg

In S&M's early position advice, it's sort of snuck in there - raise 2/3 of the time with AQs, KQs, AKs; raise 1/3 of the time with AJs.


I may have the actual hands and frequencies incorrect, but the idea is there.


Now, my point is that this makes a lot of sense when you think about limping hands in EP. You note the danger of being too predictable in EP. I am under the (wrong?) impression that limping with big aces sometimes is an important balancing factor with regards to this.


I hardly ever can bring myself to open limp with these cards, of course.


As for QJs, I limp with it in early position. I also limp with KJs.

skp,


Curious how often you get raised, hit top pair and have to dump or pay off? The domination potential seems like the biggest reason not to play them. Have you found that you are good enough at getting away from them when you hit a pair and no draw? Do you think this lends you to weak-tight thinking in terms of these hands. For example, does the flop go bet-raise (by pre-flop raiser) fold very often when you have QJ and flop of Q74 rainbow? I think I would have trouble in spots like this, so much that I would probably eliminate QJs from my early position hands. But I am not an experienced middle limit player.


KJS

Tough question to provide an answer to in a vacuum. All I can say is that I trust my hand reading skills enough to play these hands profitably. Note: Almost all my opponents are known to me (of course, I am known to them as well so that cuts both ways).