Specific Hand, Specific Situation

The hand is Q/K suited, the situation is UTG in 20/40. The discussion is whether it is more profitable to call or raise. Foreget the "it depends". Some say the equity is in letting as many people as possible into the pot. Others say a raise UTG will usually keep out the A/small and this is what you want to do. Opinions and reasons please.

I'll just poke my low limit ass in here a second because I was thinking about the exact same thing today, and what I thought was, what kind of hands do you want to play against with KQs? QJ, KJ, KT etc, all of which you dominate - which are exactly the kind of hands that people will limp with after you limp. A raise will knock them out, while a limp will invite them to play. I think the difference here (in terms of why not limp with everything so dominanted hands can limp) between KQ and AK is that there's no way AK can lose unimproved to an unimproved non pocket pair while its very easy for KQ to lose.


That make any sense?

I have somewhat of a rhetorical questions for you?

What types of hands are your opponents going to call a raise from UTG with? Second to that, what types of hands are your opponents going to limp in with?


If a raise UTG gets you the blinds. or up against just the BB you may be in decent shape..

If ppl are there are opponents who are willing to call regardless of the raise you're still okay..

But if the raise forces people to play only their "premium" hands then I feel you've isolated yourself against the exact lot of individuals that you don't want to be up against...(AA, KK, QQ, AK & AQ)


Some people for some weird reason get upset when they see they're beaten by an inferior hand...

I'd rather forget about the pot.. and realize this individual has now been positively reinforced to play trash... In the long run.. this player will pay off.. either directly to you... or to another player.. which you will eventually beat...


In short.. I'd rather not raise KQs from UTG.. I save alot of my "action" for middle and late position.. that's where I feel I've trapped inferior hands which have already limped in..

Seeing the flop and play afterwards can dictate if you should be in the hand or not..

In every viable game, and I mean every game of every kind -- golf, bowling, football, backgammon -- you name it, there are, there must be, break-even situations, where one choice is just as good as the other.


If I had never played hold'em, and I wanted to find a break-even situation, I know exactly how I would proceed. I would comb the literature and online forums, and find a situation that is often discussed, where the same points are repeatedly made, but with no majority forming that says one way is better than the other.


KQ UTG, it doesn't matter what you do.


Tommy

Thanks Tommy, I now feel that my poker thinking has been blessed by THE oracle.

Do whatever you think will keep you from getting 3 or 4 callers. 0, 1 or 2 is good. 5+ is good. 3 or 4 is not as good.


Eric

Coz,


unless I am mistaken the only hands containing an unimproved no pocket pair that can beat your KQ are the hands containing one of the 4 available aces. It doesn't semm like 4 hands that can beat you vs: hunderds that cannot makes it "very easy" for your hand to lose. What am I missing here Coz?


Jimbo

I agree for KQ. Call, raise, fold are all about equal. But this is a question about KQs. For KQs, a fold is clearly a loser. In a loose game I think it's probably close between call and raise, with the call looking for the big volume pot. In a tight game I think for most players a raise is probably the clear best play.

I should point out that I misstated that part about folding KQs. Obviously a fold breaks even. But it "loses" relative to playing it.