What do you raise UTG?

[Matty]

Turns out the UTG position is a big leak for me. I'm pretty sure I'm playing too many hands too aggressively preflop.

So ... typical 1/2 6 max party game. A couple very loose players, and a couple mediocre players: What Do You Play?

I play AA-77, AKs-A8s, AKo-AJo, KQs-K9s, KQo-KJo, QJs

I also sometimes dip lower than those requirements: QJo, QTs, A7s, JTs, etc.

PokerTracker says I play 10% of my hands UTG, and I Preflop raise all of them.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[naphand]

This looks pretty much standard, although I may drop 77, A8s, K9s UTG in some games, I may also add JTs to a raise UTG.

This does not look standard:

quote]I also sometimes dip lower than those requirements: QJo, QTs, A7s, JTs, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you have answered your opwn question. Hands like QJo play well in the $1/$2 games to a limp in CO/OTB, you are asking for trouble playing them UTG.

[Matty]

But always KJo?

[Nate tha' Great]

Your standards are fine.

[ QUOTE ]
I also sometimes dip lower than those requirements: QJo, QTs, A7s, JTs, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is fine too if you have any semblance of a postflop game.

[Peter_rus]

Currently my list is:
AA-66, AKs-A7s, AKo-ATo, KQs-K9s, KQo-KJo, QJs-QTs

[imitation]

I don't play A7s or A8s, nor K9s from UTG, my VP$IP is only 20.8 though. The rest are raises.

[BigEndian]

Grey, you wouldn't happen to be from the ATL area would you?

- Jim

[TJD]

Could you or someone else answer a question for me?

According to Pokerroom EV stats for 6 players; UTG is also profitable down to Q8s and T9s as well as K9s; KTo also shows a small profit.

If the "average" of all the players performances is for these to be profitable then why do not the better than average 2+2 players, like yourself, not play them for profit?

I would like to know. I am just starting on 6 Max and am looking to put together some sensible starters by position to work with until I get a better feel for the game.

Cheers

T

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Grey, you wouldn't happen to be from the ATL area would you?

- Jim

[/ QUOTE ]No, Indianapolis

TJD- I dunno.

[schwza]

i play primarily NL50 (just switched to NL100) 6max at party and i've done pretty well.

i'll play any pair, any suited ace (especially if i have a bigger stack than 50xBB), AK-AJ, any two broadway suited. i'd stay away from KQ and below.

what i'd raise and what i'd limp depend more on the table.

[naphand]

That's a good question.

Some SIMS I have run with Turbo Texas Holdem also suggest quite a large number of hands over and above the accepted norm can be raised or limped PF profitably. I also know about the figures you mention; the problem is, they apply the stats across all limits so it is difficult to determine exactly what game conditions and tactics apply. I'm sure a lot more will be learned about starting hands and EV over the coming years with increasing sophistication of poker software, allowing subtle variations in game conditions and tactics to be applied to starting hands. I have no doubt there will be plenty of surprises.

Part of the answer may lie in playing style, introducing more marginal hands may result in profit for them but less with others, due to getting called down more often or 3-bet more readily. In games where players call with anything, it is difficult to put them on hands and so they will extract more money when they have legit hands. Peter Rus is an example of a player who has quite loose standards (compared to many), and he knows how best to exploit this.

I have read elsewhere (cannot remember where) about how some hands (like A4s) are more easily played ALL-IN as you are never faced with difficult decisions post-flop. I cannot remember the article, but it was a very well-written piece that talked about how some hands really need to get to SD to have the best chance, and why all-in was the most profitable line (the article was talking about how it could be possible to use your "disconnect protection" for these types of hands profitably.... /images/graemlins/wink.gif). If you have ever folded a winning hand under pressure from an opponents betting, you will understand what I mean.

Why are some hands theoretically +EV but actually much harder to play? Because you will be put in marginal situations far more often, where you wont know where you stand and the possibility of making mistakes goes up. If poker really is about making less mistakes (according to TOP) then you should be avoiding putting yourself in this position too often, you should be putting your opponents in this spot.

Would be interesting to discuss this further, though I think it is quite well covered in TOP. I think there is no reason not to consider playing a particular hand that is theoretically +EV (such as QTs or QJo), to determine how playable it is, and see how it affects the rest of your game. SIMS could be good (though there seems little interest in this on the forum, from the responses I have had in the past), but I think experience will be the true test.