QT suited in the big blind.

[Bob T.]

Ok, one of those posts that is going to prove nothing, but here goes. Online 5-10.

Loose passive UTG limps, Loose, loose aggressive MP limps, Button limps, SB calls, I raise out of the big blind with QT of clubs. All call to the SB who folds.

Flop 5 /images/graemlins/club.gif4 /images/graemlins/heart.gif5 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif.

I bet, UTG and MP call, button folds.

Turn, 7 /images/graemlins/club.gif I bet, UTG folds, MP calls.

River A /images/graemlins/heart.gif I bet, MP folds.

This MP, would have raised preflop with an Ace, and he also usually raised with any reasonable draw, so I was fairly certain that he was on overcards to the flop, until the river, when I thought that the Ace, would be the last straw in convincing him to fold.

As I said, this probably doesn't prove anything in the raising suited broadway cards from the blinds, but I thought I would throw it out there.

[tpir90036]

i like it. i have been slowly adding raising with big suited cards in late position after limpers to my play...and i read your post in the other thread about suited broadway cards in the BB. i probably won't do it every time, but it's a good way to mix things up and it definitely helps you take control in short-handed pots. the big problem i see with this play is running into someone who limped in with KQ or AJ when i decide to raise with my KJ. i don't think this will happen often enough to make the play wrong though, especailly if you scout out who is limping with decent hands and who is limping with trash.

i suppose i didn't add much to the discussion. i just wanted to say i liked the hand and the follow through on betting.

[Brian]

Hi Bob,

Of course *I* like it, and I think that this post helps demonstrate the other great thing about raising from the Blinds with these sorts of hands: It helps you to take control of the hand. Of course, Stu Pidasso might tell you to just check here, but his manipulating the pot size theory to take control of the hand doesn't work out quite as well when the Flop looks like that.

There are obviously many plusses to raising with these sorts of hands. At the 5-10 level, many people pay attention, and when they see you show down a hand like that after raising, they'll pay you off more with your bigger hands. I love having the image of being a reckless, loose raiser. Of course, if you have a tight image then it works all the better, because they are much less likely to give you credit for having your hand when you do hit it, and you can steal much more often on the Flop.

Like you said, this post will prove nothing in the eyes of the non-believers, but I'm a fan, Bob. I'm a fan.

-Brian

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course *I* like it, and I think that this post helps demonstrate the other great thing about raising from the Blinds with these sorts of hands.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Brian,

Theres a couple of differences between how you played your hand and how Bob played his. Lets go through them.

First, your motives for raising are different. You raised your hand becuase you have a misconception that your hand is far superior to what is likely to be out in the field. In reality your hand is at best a tiny favorite. Bob knows the value of his hand. When Bob raised he was trying to represent a hand that is much stronger than what he actually held. Hes actually hoping to either flop a huge draw and tie everyone's ass to the pot, or hope the flop completely misses everyone so he can bluff them out on the flop with his paper monster.

Second, Bob is raising an EP limper, A MP limper, A LP limper. You raised two EP limpers. Generally speaking, EP limpers tend to have somewhat stronger holdings than MP or LP limpers. Even though Bob is against a larger field, you're more likely to find yourself dominated by someone with a better kicker than he is.

Third, since Bob is hoping to either flop a nut draw, or run a bluff if he misses, Bob likes a field that is either very multi-way(in case he flops a draw) or short handed(in case he tries to bluff). I think it would have been better if Bob had at least one more opponent(5 opponents is much better than 4 for this play with this holding). When you raised, the field was not ideal to either run a bluff, or push a draw.

I hope this helps you understand why I believe you were incorrect with your raise.

Stu

[lil']

I like Brian's K-Js raise more than this one.

I would not have made this raise. Like we were saying, against a smaller field it seems better. 3 opponents is right in that range where I can easily get outkicked and often need to show down a winner.

If you did it with Q-Js, I'd feel a little more comfortable with it.

[Joe Tall]

Intesting play. Against these type of players and with your reads I like it.

Peace,
JT

[Bob T.]

I did it here, because in the KJ s thread I was asked about where I set the limits for raising preflop with suited broadway cards, and I realized that I used the same reasons for calling with QT, QJ, and JT, that I used to use for almost all of these hands, so I decided to expand my range, and post my results. I will probably post a couple more of these in the coming week, just so people have an idea of what happens when I have a misadventure with them also.

One last point on the play, is that you have to be aware of your opponents fold point. Some people fold on the flop when they miss, some on the turn, and some on the river. Once they have gone past there usual fold point, you have to try and figure out what they hold. I also new that the MP in this hand was a river folder, but he was also a frequent semibluffer/bluffer, and a thin thin value better. I expected that he would raise with almost any part of the flop, and I also expected that I would have to fire all four barrels to get him to fold.

[Your Mom]

If raising with QTs is good, then how the hell can raising with KJs be bad. That's just silly. KJs is going to be a favorite against a bunch of limpers probably 90 percent of the time. Why not raise with the best hand?

[ElSapo]

I think the play of the hand post-flop and pre-flop are too dramatically different things.

Pre-flop, I don't make the raise but I understand why you did. I'll raise with KQs and AJs (and better) but the KTs, QTs and KJs I just check it.

Post-flop, I feel like your play is dominated by your reads on your opponents (obviously a good thing). You ran a bluff against opponents you knew well, nice play.

But I think the post-flop and pre-flop decisions are driven by different factors.

I bring this up only as a reason why bet-bet-bet with Q-high may not be a default play for most readers.

(Curious, do you bet the turn again if it isn't a club?)

[Bob T.]

(Curious, do you bet the turn again if it isn't a club?)


Against the two opponents that I had left, I think I have to. Against some others, I would not have.

[MRBAA]

I think for every hand you come in with you should have line of play in mind. That can range from 2-3o in the BB, where your line of play is flop two pair or better or get out to AA, where your line of play is jam the pot as much as possible until you get a convincing reason to do otherwise. With this hand, against these opponents, I like your play. Against three other low limit opponents, stubborn passive calling stations who rarely semi-bluff, for example, I might like checking your option and check/folding the flop. Or raising pre-flop, betting the flop and check/calling on the turn (with your four flush) and folding the river.

[Brian]

Hi YourMom,

Stu does not listen to logic and is hell-bent on proving himself right in the KJs despite what all others say. I could argue with him all day about my raise was good, and I am sure even Bob would admit he'd rather have KJs in my spot than QTs in his spot. But, that's okay /images/graemlins/smile.gif

-Brian

[anatta]

I like this post and the responses. Sometimes I like to raise with suited connectors in the BB as a cheap way to vary my play. Brier/Ciafonne point out that your opponents probably won't remember that you were in the blind, just that, "this player raises with QTs".

I am torn between whether this raise is a "value" raise or not in terms of present EV against a "normal" field. Obviously, QTs isn't that strong of a hand. Nonetheless, two dimes probably shows it wins a bit more than its fair share here. So does this mean you should raise preflop with these hand in general? How significant is the fact that you are hurting your implied odds since you are already in and could have gotten a free play (balanced by the "tie in" factor/bluff factor counter balanced by the slight high card strength give them odds to track you down with one pair factor /images/graemlins/crazy.gif).

[Your Mom]

I think u r right Brian. Keep posting your hands. You have come up with some good ones.

[Bob T.]

How significant is the fact that you are hurting your implied odds since you are already in and could have gotten a free play (balanced by the "tie in" factor/bluff factor counter balanced by the slight high card strength give them odds to track you down with one pair factor ).

If I could express that in a mathematical formula, I doubt that I could understand it after I was done /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

I think that there are two ways to play these hands that make sense. Either limp preflop, and then play weak tight on the flop, or raise preflop, and then play aggressively, as long as the flop isn't intolerable. In my experience, taking the more aggressive route, seems to add to my bottom line. I think that you also have to keep in mind, that most of the time, I play 3-6, and 5-10 online, and these games seem to usually be pretty aggressive, so if it actually gets limped to the blinds, it is likely that there aren't many hands out there that merit aggression. In an hour or so this afternoon, I held suited broadway cards in the blinds three times, and all three times, by the time it was my action, it already was 2 or 3 bets. As it was, I only saw the flop once on those three hands.

It may very well be the case, in more passive games, that this play may run into bigger hands, and might have less value, but in those games, it seems that being the aggressor has more value just because your strategy is more non-self-weighting than your opponents strategy.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
If raising with QTs is good then how the hell can raising with KJs be bad. That's just silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said raising with QTs was good, go back and reread the post. My comments about Bobs play were intended to show why and when you might want to raise with suited broadway cards from the big blind. Raising with suited broadway cards from the bigblind is certainly a valid line of play in many spots. I don't think there is a lot of debate about that.

When commenting about Brian's raise with KJs from the bigblind, I described it as "incorrect" and "not horribly wrong". These words certainly are not a strong condemnation of his raise. I don't think he gave up very much up by making the raise.

Brian's error is in why he made the raise. I have been a lot harsher in my criticism of his thought process than in the raise itself. Perhaps I should have been a little gentler in this regard.

Stu

p.s. I think Bobs joke about the scientists and the AI machine is quit analogous.