QTh - What do you think?

[WalleyeJason]

What do you think about my preflop play here?
very loose table, lots of raises preflop with junk like A9off and KJ.


3/6 Texas HE Party

Dealt to Walleye675 [ Qh, Th ]
UTG calls (3)
Walleye675 calls (3)
EP calls (3)
MP Poster checks.
LMP raises (6) to 6
SB calls (5)
BB calls (3)
UTG calls (3)
Walleye675 raises (6) to 9
EP calls (6)
MP Poster calls (6)
LMP raises (6) to 12
SB calls (6)
BB calls (6)
UTG calls (6)
Walleye675 calls (3)
EP calls (3)
MP Poster calls (3)

[Brian]

Hi Walleye,

I can't say that I am a fan of the limp re-raise with QTs. This is the type of hand that you want to see the Flop as cheaply as possible when you are out of position. Just because people are making random raises with junk doesn't mean you should too. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

-Brian

[J.R.]

I don't really like the limp if the game is very aggressive since QTs likes to get in cheaply and I am also not fond of playing draws out of position, especailly in aggressive games. Unfortunately, I don't like the limp re-raise either since QTs needs to catch a flop here (i.e. it thrives on implied odds) and you shouldn't like to put in multiple bets when QTs is behind and needs to improve to win. Put in bets when you have the bets of it, which isn't the case here, yet /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[spamuell]

I quite like this play actually, if the game is loose post-flop. You're giving yourself odds to chase if you flop a draw, and with 6 opponents, I think you win enough of the time for this to be a good limp-reraise. Also mixes up your play A LOT.

I'm basing this on Carson's advocating limp-reraising 97s from LP. QTs is a much stronger hand than 97s, and your position doesn't matter too much because if you flop any kind of draw, you're seeing the river (expect a backdoor draw where you'll only see the turn /images/graemlins/grin.gif).

[WalleyeJason]

Ya, I figured I was being a little extravigant with my limp re-raise. However, I was playing pretty tight in a very loose game that had many people seeing the flop and dumping.

I'm pretty sure I got the original raiser to fold the winning hand as he said he was on tilt after he check/folded on the river and I showed QT.

WJ

LOL
Thanks,
WJ

I did win a nice pot though!!!

[Warior]

Maybe I'm just too much of a TAP but thats not a hand I want to go to war with in that position. Much rather save my bets where I have a better chance of taking the table down.

[J.R.]

I'm basing this on Carson's advocating limp-reraising 97s from LP.

My opinion may not be worth much to you, but I think you will do wonders for you game if you disregard a lot of the stuff Carson says. Its not all bad, but the few gems tend to get burried by the crap. That's just my opinion, and I obviously really dislike Carson's poker advice and approach to the game.

[spamuell]

but I think you will do wonders for you game if you disregard a lot of the stuff Carson says.

Which stuff? Why do you say this? Carson has been a big inspiration for me in loose games, and I have done pretty well in them (for the limited time I've played). I'm not saying this proves that he is right, I'm just wondering on what grounds you think he is wrong?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I quite like this play....If the game is loose post-flop. You're giving yourself odds to chase if you flop a draw, and with 6 opponents

[/ QUOTE ]

You might as well flush money down the toilet. What you are doing is crushing your own implied odds.

Stu

[BigEndian]

Ding! Winnar!

This is a play just short of d-u-m, dum.

- Jim

[Mike Gallo]

What do you think about my preflop play here?

I think you took the limp reraise to a different level with this hand.

[spamuell]

You might as well flush money down the toilet. What you are doing is crushing your own implied odds.

Yes, suited broadway cards are usually played because of implied odds, like small pairs. However, if you will more than 1 time in 7 with this QTs, then you're not looking for implied odds, because you've got the immediate odds to make everyone pay which is +EV for you.

It's like if you were holding 66 with 9 limpers, because you're 7.5:1 to flop a set, a raise into the limpers who would call would be a raise for value. Of course, this is not discounting that sometimes a set will lose (although I tried to make up for this with 9 limpers). QTs is less likely to lose when it hits, because it makes nut straights, good flushes, and high pairs, 2 pairs, full houses etc.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that this is not necessarily a losing play - I don't know for sure whether QTs will win more than 1 time in 7 against 6 opponents, I'm just saying that I think it's likely that it will, although I don't have the ability to carry out the simulations.

Now the betting getting capped afer the limp-reraise obviously reduces the chances that QTs has for winning, as it makes a big pair more likely, but the hero in this hand didn't know that this was going to happen, although it was a possibility. But the QTs is still likely a profitable hand.

[WalleyeJason]

[ QUOTE ]
Ding! Winnar!

This is a play just short of d-u-m, dum.

- Jim

[/ QUOTE ]

Why dont you add a more information to back up your intelligent response, Instead of an insulting remark? Or maybe even something useful...

WJ

Otherwise, post your childish responses over at RPG where they belong.

[WalleyeJason]

I think you took the limp reraise to a different level with this hand.

I guess it depends on if your in the lobby or in the penthouse to decide if its good or bad?

WJ

[BigEndian]

Intelligent response:
You limp re-raise a hand that is easily dominated by a PF raiser and quite possibly other limpers (KT, QJ, AT, etc). You cut down your implied odds dramatically on a hand that yearns for implied odds with a herd coming along for the ride. Your only likely clean hand at the river will be a flush and even then it's the 3rd nut.

Further editorial:
Don't be so sensitive.

- Jim

[WalleyeJason]

Further editorial: Don't be so sensitive.

Your one of those types that allways likes to get the last word in, and of course you were born with your poker skills you never had to learn the hard way.

Thanks for your analysis, It sounds like great advice!!

Thanks
WJ

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't be so sensitive

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the best advice he has given in this thread.

Stu

[Nate tha' Great]

It's not hard to construct scenarios in which he's got sufficient preflop equity (e.g. pot odds) to reraise against this many opponents.

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=188833*

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=188838

Now, some of you hate these sort of simulations. And I could have picked out other combinations of cards that might not do as well. But the thing about his hand is that it's very easy to play postflop: if you've got odds to draw, you do so; if not, you get out. Analytical players like us understand that; gamblers do not.

Also, I think that the concept of implied odds is being misued here. It's not the ratio of bets won : bets invested that counts; it's the difference between the two.

For example, let's say that you've got a hand that has a 20% chance to be the winner.

Would you rather:

a. Invest $1 for a potential payoff of $10?
b. Invest $4 for a potential payoff of $30?

You've got better "implied odds" in the former case (10:1 > 30:4).

But your EV is higher in the latter:

$10 x 20% - $1 = $2 - $1 = $1
$30 x 20% - $4 = $6 - $4 = $2

S&M describe implied odds in a more useful sense: an adjustment "based on the expected future actions of your opponents". You can expect that the passive fishes you're playing against are going to be making a lot of incorrect calls on future streets, *especially* if the pot is large, and that's the point of raising here.

I don't know if I'd do it in this scenario, because I'm not especially fond of being in EP here (something else that impacts your implied odds), and because QTs is somewhat more vulernable than some of the other suited connectors.

But once you're got six or seven opponents, premium suited connectors aren't losing a lot of equity regardless of the number of bets before the flop. Hell, I'll even fess up to cold calling with hands like these in cases where I can expect 5-way action or better, and the other players are passive. His play is marginal, sure, but it's not deserving of the venemous responses that it has received.

* This stuff is why I prefer to play 6-handed.

[BigEndian]

One more response from me and then you can feel free to get as many "last words" in as you like.

If you were insulted by my initial response, then tough. Yes, I could have added more than a simple two-line quip. Mea culpa. But there's no need to go on a tirade.

If you don't like me second, "legitimate" response, then for Christ's sake, don't ask for one.

- Jim

[spamuell]

I editied one of your twodimes simulations to include KQo, because I think excluding all Qs from the deck was probably a little unfair. QTs still wins more than it's "fair share" though. http://twodimes.net/h/?z=188928

I'm still not convinced that the limp reraise here is -EV. Implied odds are not what are important here.

[BigEndian]

Would you rather:

a. Invest $1 for a potential payoff of $10?
b. Invest $4 for a potential payoff of $30?


I would rather invest in the first scenario 4 times than the second scenario once...

- Jim

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]

Would you rather:

a. Invest $1 for a potential payoff of $10?
b. Invest $4 for a potential payoff of $30?


I would rather invest in the first scenario 4 times than the second scenario once...

- Jim

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why you wouldn't want to make that play if you wanted to cut down on your swings. The increase in variance is substantial. But for the most part, lower limit players are concerned about BB/hand or BB/hour, and the latter proposition is superior from that perspective.

[spamuell]

I would rather invest in the first scenario 4 times than the second scenario once...

That's completely irrelevant. Are you suggesting that if you just put in 1 bet pre-flop with QTs, you will be dealt QTs 4 times as much as a result of this?!

You have a choice, you can put as much money in as you can when you likely have better odds to win than you're getting from the pot once, or put much less money in, also once. Unfortuantely, you can't pick your cards.

[bunky9590]

You missed another meeting didn't you?

Your sponsor is very upset. Put the crack pipe away!!!!

Just say no to Drugs and limp re-raising with dominated suited one gappers!

[WalleyeJason]

Your ok in my book, I just thought that the 2 liner was a shot...

Am I offended, no.

Am I sensitive...Probably too much

Do I expect anyone to care...No

I though your second response was insightful and I had no problems with it.

I think we have covered this up pretty good.

Thanks
WJ

[Homer]

You're giving yourself odds to chase if you flop a draw

This doesn't make any sense.

If a couple limp to me in LP with 97s, should I raise so that I will have odds to take one off should I flop a gutshot draw?

-- Homer

[Stu Pidasso]

What your post is demonstrating is the schooling effect fish have on a multiway pot. Its good to understand the schooling effect that fish have on the game, but you certainly do not want to base your poker strategy on it.

There will be plenty of times when QTs has enough equity becuase of all the fish that it is not really harmed by preflop raises. In these situations QTs is not likely to gain very much from these raises either. There are also plenty of times when QTs will be a severe dog in a multiway hand. In these situations QTs is severly harmed by any preflop raises.

With QTs in a multiway pot you have a situation where you either benefit only slightly by a raise or are harmed a whole lot. Since there is no substantial advantage to limp-reraising with QTs and there may very well be a substantial disadvantage to limp-reraising, the play of limp-reraising with QTs falls into the same category as flushing money down the toilet.

Stu

[Homer]

It's probably not a horrible move if EP and the MP poster will routinely call two more cold. I'm guessing QTs wins close to its fair share against 6 opponents, and if it doesn't, it's probably close enough that the advantages you gain in future hands makes it worth doing once in a while.

-- Homer

[ChipWrecked]

Copied from Izmet's site (http://slicer.headsupclub.com:3455/16/25) :

To put it simply, as fish are conditioned to call, it is necessary to exploit this tendency by raising (building the pot) in situations when them calling is profitable for you. The value of raising to knock people out greatly diminishes in such a game. A good example of smart raising is with flush/straight draws and many potential callers. You do *not* want them to fold.

Starting hands selection is crucial and somewhat different from "normal"...(snip portion about deviant sexual preferences) Suited aces are keepers in any position, raisers in late position. Play looser with suited kings and queens....

Just tossing it out. I believe this is not unlike what Carson is saying.

[Mike Gallo]

Jason,

I would have picked a better to spot to limp reraise.

Since you knew the maniac would raise or reraise, why not just open raise.

Most opponents will not recognize what you have done when you limp reraise, especially a maniac.

Perhaps I should reevaluate my own limp reraising standards /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[spamuell]

If a couple limp to me in LP with 97s, should I raise so that I will have odds to take one off should I flop a gutshot draw?

OK, fair point, this doesn't make sense because you're just putting the bets in earlier on. I still think, however, that this isn't a bad play, for the (other) reasons I outlined above (mainly to do with it not having to do with implied odds).

[slogger]

This makes very little sense. The first raise gave you all the info you needed to know that your QT was likely way behind. Reraising is a maniac play here.

With this many opponents, including a raiser, you're likely up against at least two of the following hands that crush you:

AA, KK, QQ, AK, AQ, AT, KQ, KT, QJ

Also very troublesome: AJ, AT, etc., KJ, JJ, TT, 99, etc.

And be prepared to get hammered if some of the above are suited in hearts.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
What your post is demonstrating is the schooling effect fish have on a multiway pot. Its good to understand the schooling effect that fish have on the game, but you certainly do not want to base your poker strategy on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without meaning to sound catty, you do want to base your strategy on it.

[ QUOTE ]
With QTs in a multiway pot you have a situation where you either benefit only slightly by a raise or are harmed a whole lot. Since there is no substantial advantage to limp-reraising with QTs and there may very well be a substantial disadvantage to limp-reraising, the play of limp-reraising with QTs falls into the same category as flushing money down the toilet.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

I've stated above that I think the benefit is marginal.

But how might you be harmed "a whole lot"? If there's an Ax of the same suit out there, and a pair of queens, and a pair of tens, then yeah, you're probably screwed. Hell, AK is screwed when it comes up against AA; does that mean that you should quit 3-betting with it? These scenarios are the exceptions; the reasons that suited connectors are such good multiway hands is that they have a variety of different ways to win, and are therefore relatively immune to domination.

And strictly speaking, the flushing money down the toilet thing takes place after the flop. If you've got QT /images/graemlins/heart.gif, and are up against A9 /images/graemlins/heart.gif, and three hearts come on the board, then you're going to lose a lot of money regardless of how you played it before the flop.

[J.R.]

Would you rather:

a. Invest $1 for a potential payoff of $10?
b. Invest $4 for a potential payoff of $30?



Its often easier to recoup 10 times you intial investment when you only put in one small bet than it is to recoup 9 times your original investment when you put in 4 (a cap) small bets. This is especially so when a lot of the wins for QTs will be flushes, and a flush is more obvious in hold'em than a set or 2 pair, so one is less likely to induce their opponents to overplay their hands while holding a flush than a set or full house. This is also due to the fact that the change in hand values after the flop in hold'em is not anywhere near as dramatic as the change in value from the preflop to flop stage, so its harder to induce opponents to put in multiple bets postflop as it is to induce them to put in multiple bets preflop.

You can expect that the passive fishes you're playing against are going to be making a lot of incorrect calls on future streets, *especially* if the pot is large, and that's the point of raising here.

They are less likely to make errors later if the pot is bigger because the error calling stations most often make is to call when they shouldn't; in big pots you would like your opponents to fold as opposed to calling because you won't make enough big hands to have your opponents drawing dead. That said, I thought he described this game as aggressive.

Anyway, as you note against 6 or 7 opponents the implied odds considerations become less important because you often have an overlay in the present pot odds so you don't need to recoup many bets later on. But they are still relevant. But EV is king. But being out of position with a draw in an aggressive game is never fun. You usually get hammered between a couple of made hands. Just some musings. Thanks.

[J.R.]

Izmet was talking about raising against fishy caller's hands that are much weaker than yours to induce mistakes later on and capitalize on your existing edge, this is a little different from that situation in that the pot has already been raised and is already large.

Not to say its a hugely negative play to re-raise with QTs, but most often you will have some marginal equity or will be behind in a raised pot, and the more bets that go in preflop, the less likely it is that you will recoup multiples of your preflop investment later on when you do make a strong hand.

[Mike]

If you make this play with the intention of dumping it for anything less than a flopped broadway or the flush draw it's a bad play. You can't hang around with one pair, and at many times your two pair is no good. If that was your intention I like the play.

QTh flushes, straights and full houses, and pays off x amount of time no matter where it's played from in a loose game. You just have to be sure you are within those parameters when you play it.

On the downside, I know from experience you also have to be able to go home broke and know you either made that loss up in the past or will in the future because its a very high variance play. jmo

[WalleyeJason]

Since you knew the maniac would raise or reraise, why not just open raise.

I was sure that there would be 3-4 callers and possibly a raiser. When I got 4 callers, including a poster I realized that this was going to be a huge pot and I'm not sure I fully realized what I was doing except for the fact that If I hit my hand on the flop, I probably had the best chance to win the hand.

Kinda the reason I wanted to bring it up here, as the more I thought about it the more I thought that this was something that could have been a great play or a real bad play.

As for position, I think that I could have picked a better spot, but If I miss the flop, Im check/folding and it would have cost me 2 BB for a chance to win 16.5 BB or more.

I dont like the open raise option, because I'm not sure that they will all call, but with the limp/reraise option I know that they will all call with their money in the middle allready.

Im I making sense???

WJ

[Mike Gallo]

Ok,

Now it does makes more sense. You limped because you wanted to play the hand. By the time action got back to you, you decided to reraise because you wanted to build a huge pot. If you hit the best hand you would get paid a king's ransom.

[J.R.]

I haven't read it in a while and don't have it anymore, but here's what I recall. In general, there was too much focus on preflop play (the real money is postflop once you get past basic games with horrible opponents). I also thought it had some wrong ideas, but was decent at explaining what types of hands you should play in certain games or situations, which is better than Jones telling you what to play but not why. Carson did a good job of explaining pot odds.

I also think its better to play tight and loosen up as you go, and Carson seemed a bit loose to me. Especially against non-knuckleheads. His thinking about play seemed to only exist on the first level, which is good against newbs but doesn't cut it against better players. But if you are playing in very loose games, his book is right on target for you.

[Ed Miller]

Gary Carson is dead wrong about the 97s hand.

This limp-reraise is generally bad poker.

[Ed Miller]

I'm still not convinced that the limp reraise here is -EV. Implied odds are not what are important here.

The argument is not that limp-reraising is neccessarily -EV. The argument is that NOT limp-reraising is better than limp-reraising.

[ChipWrecked]

[ QUOTE ]
I also think its better to play tight and loosen up as you go,

[/ QUOTE ]

Idiot question: What is the time frame here? A hand, session, lifetime?

[J.R.]

lifetime

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I've stated above that I think the benefit is marginal.

But how might you be harmed "a whole lot"? If there's an Ax of the same suit out there, and a pair of queens, and a pair of tens, then yeah, you're probably screwed. Hell, AK is screwed when it comes up against AA; does that mean that you should quit 3-betting with it? These scenarios are the exceptions; the reasons that suited connectors are such good multiway hands is that they have a variety of different ways to win, and are therefore relatively immune to domination.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need such a rare alignment of hands for QTs to become a dog in a multiway pot.

Its true that most of the time when you pump the pot with this hand your raises will be marginally profitable. However you will lose the couple of cents you earn and much more those few (but not rare) times when you pump the pot and you're a dog.

Stu

[Dubious]

Walleye Jason will recognize this same post from another online discussion about this same hand. However, I'm still thinking about it and wanted to see what people here thought about my analysis process.

My initial gut reaction was that Walleye was dominated and should never have reraised, possibly never been in the hand. Then, as the discussion went on, I realized that he might have odds in that hand and a huge pot still benefitted him.

So, I ran multiple simulations of this hand through Wilson's TTH. The situation is playing $3-6 hold'em at a full 10-person table against TTH's standard "loose-aggressive" lineup (except seat 10 which I modified and used for the simulation). The button is always frozen at seat 6. Seat 10 is always dealt QT hearts. All other cards are random. Same deck order was used for all sims (though, as you'll see, some sims ran hundreds of times more hands).

Right to the conclusions:
1) Calling the blinds is the best strategy with this lineup. You make $0/hand on a fold (obviously). You make $0.33/hand on a raise. You make $0.55/hand on a call over ALL hands.
2) In RARE cases, you will call the blind, it will be raised back to you and 7 people will be in the hand when you act. In these cases, against this lineup, reraising is the best strategy. You make $0.50/hand when you reraise, $0.29/hand when you call and you lose $3/hand when you fold. Note that this is less than when nobody raises. In other words, you don't want to see a raise, but if you do and 7 are still in, you want to reraise.
3) As the number of players remaining in the hand decreases (or the table becomes tighter), this strategy quickly becomes incorrect. You should eventually just not play QTs at all in early position.

To conclude, this might have been the exact right way to play this hand. It still depends strongly on the exact lineup but I can no longer call it incorrect. It's one valid strategy.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
In RARE cases, you will call the blind, it will be raised back to you and 7 people will be in the hand when you act. In these cases, against this lineup, reraising is the best strategy. You make $0.50/hand when you reraise, $0.29/hand when you call and you lose $3/hand when you fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many times did this occurence happen in your sim?

Stu

[Dubious]

[ QUOTE ]

How many times did this occurence happen in your sim?


[/ QUOTE ]

2.3% of the time