Ciomments please - QJs

[ddubois]

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t15 (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

saw flop|<font color="C00000">saw showdown</font>

BB (t520)
<font color="C00000">Hero (t1190)</font>
UTG+1 (t615)
UTG+2 (t790)
MP1 (t865)
<font color="C00000">MP2 (t920)</font>
MP3 (t525)
CO (t1065)
Button (t720)
SB (t790)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
Hero calls t15, <font color="666666">3 folds</font>, <font color="CC3333">MP2 raises to t65</font>, <font color="666666">3 folds</font>, SB calls t55, <font color="666666">1 fold</font>, Hero calls t50.

Flop: (t210) Q/images/graemlins/club.gif, 8/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 4/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(3 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="CC3333">Hero bets t210</font>, <font color="CC3333">MP2 raises to t500</font>, SB folds, Hero calls t290.

Turn: (t1210) 7/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="CC3333">MP2 bets t355 (All-In)</font>, Hero calls t355.

River: (t1920) 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="blue">(2 players, 1 all-in)</font>

Final Pot: t1920
<font color="green">Main Pot: t1920 (t1920), between Hero and MP2.</font> &gt; <font color="white">Pot won by MP2 (t1920).</font>

Results in white below: <font color="white">
Hero shows Qd Jd (two pair, queens and fours).
MP2 shows Qh Qs (full house, queens full of fours).
Outcome: MP2 wins t1920. </font>

[TL Price]

I think you were just destined to lose this one. I think I would have played it almost exactly the same. I would be somewhat afraid of AA or KK in this spot, but with top pair plus a flush draw on the turn, you don't fold.

On the turn, you might consider folding the all-in, but you are getting proper odds to call even if opponent is holding a bigger pair. Just bad luck /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[ddubois]

Yeah, I figured even if he showed me an overpair on the flop, I am still content to be all-in, since I have 4 outs for 2pair/trips, and 9 outs for flush - oh, and also double-gutshot straight. This makes me a 48:52 underdog (is my math right?) against an overpair on the flop.

There's no way I could have considered QQ and discounted my Q and J outs, although maybe I should have factored in the possibility of KQ or AQ before counting my Q outs as full-credit.

Does anyone think I should play this like a draw rather than a made hand on the flop? If I check the flop, he might slowplay, or more likely, make a smaller bet than 500 in order to keep me in? I might have a chance to get away from the hand if/when the turn misses me then.

[durron597]

Why are you playing QJs from UTG at a full table? Easy fold preflop, don't even limp here - what happened to you is why you don't play most hands (especially one as bad as QJs) UTG.

Edit: If you absolutely MUST play it, always assume that your pair of queens is never good, and that you need at least a flush/broadway/two pair/trips to even consider getting chips in the middle unless you think you can steal. Otherwise assume you're behind and FOLD.

[ddubois]

Easy fold preflop, don't even limp here

I thought someone might say that. But QJs is a pretty good hand. Especially if I can see a flop cheaply, and on level 1, you see alot of hands that go 5 limpers to the flop. In fact, I will play hands signifigantly weaker than QJs during level 1, because the implied odds are huge. See this post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=singletable&amp;Number=740814&amp; Forum=,,,,All_Forums,,,,&amp;Words=&amp;Searchpage=3&amp;Limit =25&amp;Main=740080&amp;Search=true&amp;where=&amp;Name=3941&amp;dater ange=&amp;newerval=&amp;newertype=&amp;olderval=&amp;oldertype=&amp;bo dyprev=#Post740814). You can easily bust someone overplaying TPTK with a lucky two-pair/straight/trips. If he had raised more pre-flop I would have folded, but when it came back to me for only 50 chips getting 4:1 I think the call is appropriate. If the flop had been merely Q-high or merely a flush draw, I would not have lost my stack. In fact, the only reason I had more chips than my opponent here was because I completed in the SB with Q8o a prior hand and flopped trips - any hand is worth a paltry 5 chips.

The fact that I got a great flop at the same time he got a monster flop, while I also missed my re-draw is IMO an abberation. But, hey, maybe I'm wrong. That's why I posted to ask.

always assume that your pair of queens is never good, and that you need at least a flush/broadway/two pair/trips

I did not think it likely that my queens was a winner here. I did consider the possibiltiy that I was ahead of AK/JJ/TT, and I don't want to risk giving a free card to AK, so I have to bet. But my bet also had semi-bluff potential and great pot equity, even compared to an overpair.

[SaintAces]

EASY... and... I like the UTG limp here. But you don't loose much by folding.

[HUSKER'66]

I'm starting to realize why I'm doing so well in one and two table SnG's lately......oh wait a minute, this was at Party. (I'm gonna have to transfer some money there quick! /images/graemlins/smirk.gif-J/K)

I play a lot at Stars and see players making the same kind of moves though so your not alone.

I realize that it is very early in the tourny and the blinds are cheap, but what kind of hand are you hoping to make with Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gifJ /images/graemlins/diamond.gif UTG?

You obviously know that this is not a good hand to play in such an early position in a No Limit situation....why else the limp, right? I'm curious to what your play would be if someone came out with a raise of oh let's say 200-300t?You stay and play or muck?

You have a draw to the third nut flush, a draw to a non nut straight, maybe top pair weak kicker, and last but not least two pair.

If the flop does hit you in the face, you will have to hope and pray that it doesn't scare off everyone else and you get some action.

Q/J suited is not the kind of hand to be playing out of position in a no limit situation. It is a hand that can get you into a lot of trouble and cause you to lose a lot if not all of your chips......as from the outcome of this hand you learned the hard way.

Just my thoughts,

Husker

p.s. Don't take my word for it.If you don't have it already(and it appears you don't) get Cloutier's, "Championship No Limit &amp; Pot Limit Hold'Em. As my fellow Texan would say....this is a dog with fleas, and I tend to believe the man that has won just about every major tournament known to man.

[Nemesis]

I'm sure you're a MUCH better SNG player than me, but i found cloutier's book WORTHLESS. Get Caffione's book for general NL principles, and get TPFAP from 2+2. Together i think they're a GREAT start to NLHE SNG's.

[HUSKER'66]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you're a MUCH better SNG player than me, but i found cloutier's book WORTHLESS. Get Caffione's book for general NL principles, and get TPFAP from 2+2. Together i think they're a GREAT start to NLHE SNG's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure just how sarcastic you were with the "MUCH" comment. I am by no means stating I'm God's gift to the world of SnG's.

As for the rest of your post, I have the two other books you mention. Maybe I missed something, but i don't recall them advocating playing medium suited connector's from UTG.On page 51 in TPFAP, Sklansky does use Q /images/graemlins/spade.gifJ /images/graemlins/spade.gif as an UTG example, but it is in a limit situation and even then he suggest possibly raising preflop if the hand is played at all.

Husker

[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious to what your play would be if someone came out with a raise of oh let's say 200-300t?You stay and play or muck?

[/ QUOTE ]

Should I assume this question is rhetorical, or should I be insulted? Because the answer is patently obvious.

[Nemesis]

MUCH was not sarcastic at all... i'm a complete noob here. I just found cloutier's book worthless... so much so that i returned it to barnes and noble claiming it was a "gift" but I had asked for another book and didn't want it.

[HUSKER'66]

Should I assume this question is rhetorical, or should I be insulted?


Yes.






No.

Husker

[soxfan70]

Havent looked at results, but I either push on the flop, or come back over the top of him for all his chips after his raise on the flop.

[obex]

I agree with folding hands like QJs UTG at level 1. Not strong enough heads up to raise. If you limp, you pretty much need a miracle flop to feel good with this hand. When the flop "hits you" you will usually be looking at a non-nut flush draw, straight draw, or top pair, weak kicker. A drawing hand in a no limit tournament UTG is not a good situation. Top pair, mediocre kicker ain't so hot either. Because you are UTG there's a very good chance that someone after you will raise after your limp so your implied odds when you limp aren't that great either.
Limping here is what I believe S&amp;M refer to as a "compounding error"...

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The fact that I got a great flop

Against a preflop raiser, top pair/weak kicker + a non-nut flush draw is not a great flop, it's a dangerous flop.

[patrick dicaprio]

i probably would have folded here preflop, but hey maybe i am a weak player, who knows. situations like this are why hands like QJs are trouble in EP. assuming tho that i saw the flop, i would push in on the flop. against any hand he has here with the exception of QQ you are a favorite I think and even against QQ you are 3-2 or so. given your opponents hand i am surprised that he didnt go all in on the flop.

Pat

[PrayingMantis]

Few mistakes in this hand:

1. Your PF limp from UTG with QJs
2. Calling MP2's raise PF.
3. Betting a little too much (to my taste) on the flop.
4. Calling MP2's raise on the flop.
5. Check-calling MP2's all-in on the turn.

That's about all. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[fnurt]

You make good arguments. But the fact is, you progressively talked yourself into losing your entire stack, bit by bit. Let's walk through it.

1. I limp UTG, because I might flop a monster, and lots of pots are multiway and unraised.

2. Oops, there was a raise, and now there's only 2 other players, but I'm getting 4:1 on my money, so I can still afford to see the flop.

3. I got a nice flop, I might be behind but I am forced to bet because he might have AK and I don't want to give a free card.

4. He raised me, but all my outs rate to be good, and it's not that big a raise, so I have to call.

5. On the turn, I'm pot committed anyway. Pity my redraw didn't hit.

Step 1 is fine. Everything else is a problem!

On the flop, as far as I'm concerned, you have two choices. If you don't want to risk your whole stack, bet out and fold to a raise. If you're willing to risk the whole stack, which you certainly have odds to do against everything but a set, then check-raise him all in. I know you were afraid to give a free card to AK, but that's what comes of being out of position with a questionable hand. AK doesn't have that many outs and 1 or 2 of them will complete your flush anyway, so I don't think it was worth a huge chunk of your stack just to protect against a free card.

But I don't want to talk about the flop, because the time to fold was clearly after it got raised preflop. You limped hoping to see a multiway flop cheaply, you didn't get multiway action and you didn't get in cheap, so throw it away!

But it's only 50 chips and I was getting 4:1. First of all, 50 chips is 5% of your stack, it's not a completely trivial amount. Second of all, you're not getting 4:1, you're getting 3:1. There's T155 in the pot and you need to call another 50.

There's nothing special about getting 3:1 that requires you to see the flop. Heck, a pot-sized bet offers 2:1 odds; is 3:1 that much better?

Suited connectors are a classic way to bleed chips if you play them in raised, shorthanded pots - not to mention out of position. You're calling off 5% of your stack before the flop, and even if you're lucky enough to flop a draw, there's probably going to be a good-sized flop bet because there was a preflop raiser.

I know you wouldn't play QJo this way UTG. Does QJs have that much more value? It really doesn't. Limp for 15 chips with whatever holding you like, but if you can't talk yourself out of continuing to put more and more chips in when you don't know where you stand, maybe those 15 chips are a poor investment.

[ddubois]

Fnurt, thanks for the great response. I wish SB hadn't called, as I would have folded heads up. I do like your line of check-raising all-in the flop. I'm not sure exactly why it's better, but any line that gets those 355 chips in when I'm 1:3 to catch my flush/trips/2pair/runner gutshot instead of 1:4 has got to be superior.

I think obex was right, there were compounding errors, but I don't appreciate Praying's "misplayed ion every street" post at all. It wasn't funny, clever, or helpful.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
but I don't appreciate Praying's "misplayed ion every street" post at all. It wasn't funny, clever, or helpful.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I really don't think it was rude or anything, and I sure didn't try to look clever or funny. I was simply pointing out the mistakes in this hand. I truely believe that getting used to some tough criticism is only going to help your game. I was getting a lot of it here too. Poker is a very cruel game: It seems like you were insulted or something by my reply, which I really cannot understand why or how. If you don't like someone's reply, you can always ignore it and move on.

To the hand again. You may like it or not, but it *was* misplayed on every street. You got yourself into trouble right from your first decision, and all other decisions were simply a continuation of the primal mistake, which is: playing QJs from UTG, and not being able to lay it down when you should.

So, you're limping with QJs UTG, then calling a raise insted of folding. On the flop - you hit TP marginal kicker with a non-nut flush draw. You bet too much (that's if you're going to fold to a reraise), but then, when you are reraised, which clearly should make you understand you're in trouble here - you only call, instead of folding OR pushing (if you have a read on your opponent).

On the turn, you're check-calling his bet, instead of betting yourself - which is ALWAYS better if you're going to put everything in, in situations like this. By check-calling you gain zero folding equity. The fact that you "needed" to put the rest of the money in, because you already had the "odds" (which in fact, knowing your opponent's cards, you were getting very slim odds, if at all), is, again, a result from playing this hand in this way.

This hand is a great example for why draws are so dangarous in these tournies (as William said here once: "draws are death"), with poor position, and ESPECIALLY if you're not strong enough to realize you're beaten.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I don't appreciate Praying's "misplayed ion every street" post at all. It wasn't funny, clever, or helpful.

However, since you did misplay the hand on every street, it was accurate.

The preflop limp may be only marginally wrong, but it is still an error as it can lead to further errors down the road.

[smallsaladbar]

Agreed. I do think that QJs has some value - possibly enough for a call preflop hoping to sneak in UTG. But I think you could fold to the raise preflop and not give it a second thought.

[Cptkernow]

I am "tutoring" a freind into the world of online poker.

5 minutes ago I told him "Watch out for people overplaying QJs its a suckers hand."

As far as I am concerned I avoid this hand like the plague as it will suck you into trouble.

Basicaly its Q high with ok to weak kicker.

Im intrested would you have limped with A2s?

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I really don't think it was rude or anything, and I sure didn't try to look clever or funny. I was simply pointing out the mistakes in this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You pointed out that you considered every single decision a mistake. You did not give reasons for this, but you did add a "/images/graemlins/grin.gif" afterwards. Since the reasons are not obvious, and indeed, there isn't a consensus on the correct plays, this criticism was not particularly helpful.

While no one liked the result, I feel that the individual decisions were at most marginally wrong. The main reason for the result was bad luck, not poor play.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif I don't mind limping with QJs UTG much. I do it in passive NL ring games. It can't be a mistake worth more than a fraction of the t15 BB, particularly given the abnormally large t10 SB.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif I most object to calling the preflop raise, but it's not terrible. Again, that call only costs a fraction of the chips spent, on average. If I were paid 20 chips to call, I would.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Betting on the flop isn't my preferred line of play, but it could be right; I don't know. I like check-raising all-in with this type of monster draw, as a pair plus flush draw is about even with black AA, and this gives AK or JJ a chance to bet before folding. In practice, I've found that many people call this type of check-raise with significantly worse hands, perhaps because they think it is just a bluff with a flush draw and nothing more.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Since I'm willing to put all of the chips in the middle, I don't mind calling the flop raise. In fact, most of the time I expect I will be about even when someone raises. With all of the dead money in the pot, I think the call is clear. Even if you are raised all-in, you invest 645 to win 1275 (1920 total). You only need to win 33.6% of the time to call a raise all-in, and you almost win that much in the worst-case scenario of QQ, 28.2%. (Actually, there are worse multi-way possibilities if you have neither the best draw nor the best made hand, e.g., you are almost dead against the nut flush draw and a set.)

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif After calling the flop raise, enough is in the pot that it is right to call on the turn. Against every possible hand, there are a lot of outs, and you only need to average 8.1 outs to call.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif I think checking the turn is fine. I don't agree that every time you are willing to call all-in, you should bet rather than check-call. That would mean that when you check, you can be pushed off the hand. You could be an underdog on the turn against someone scared enough to check behind on the turn. However, you need a plan for the river if your opponent checks behind.

The total loss was 920 chips, but I estimate less than 100 of that was from errors in play, possibly much less. Over 800 was just from bad luck.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

limping with QJs UTG ... can't be a mistake worth more than a fraction of the t15 BB

True, but....

This is a classic example of a "Chaos Theory" hand, where a small error early can compound into catastrophe downstream. His hand became hard to fold at every decision point. That's why you don't play it in EP when the blinds are small.

[PrayingMantis]

pzhon, I completely disagree with almost everything you say (but let's leave the discussion about "/images/graemlins/grin.gif"'s to another time, shall we?).

[ QUOTE ]
I feel that the individual decisions were at most marginally wrong. The main reason for the result was bad luck, not poor play.

[/ QUOTE ]

He made a sequence of wrong decisions. That's EXACTLY how you lose money in poker. I cannot imagine a decent player making these sequence of decisions, which you say are "at most marginally wrong". It was bad play, period, especially for NL tourny. Talking about bad luck on such a hand, is a bit ridiculus, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mind limping with QJs UTG much.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the only marginal decision. IMO, limping with QJs from UTG, for a player who isn't very sure of his post-flop play (which is certainly the case here), is a mistake.

[ QUOTE ]
I most object to calling the preflop raise, but it's not terrible. Again, that call only costs a fraction of the chips spent, on average. If I were paid 20 chips to call, I would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many moves you make cost you only a "fraction". Looking at things from that perspective, is a recipe for losing money. You have no position, you have a marginal hand, you limp-call a raise - - - how can you say these are not mistakes? the only reason to do so is if you have a very strong read of the people against you, AND you are sure of your game. Otherwise - to the muck.

[ QUOTE ]
Betting on the flop isn't my preferred line of play, but it could be right; I don't know.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, betting can be a good move, if the bet is accurate. This was not the case, IMO. It's a good spot to try and take the pot down.

[ QUOTE ]
I like check-raising all-in with this type of monster draw, as a pair plus flush draw is about even with black AA, and this gives AK or JJ a chance to bet before folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we can argue about what is draw, and what is monster draw. You have 9 outs for the non-flush flush. You probably have 3 more outs for 2P, to beat TPTK or something similar. However, thinking that the fact that you are even with AA makes it a good spot to put everything in, is very problematic, IMO. AA will surely call your check-raise. So you basically take a coin-flip. Why would you like a coin flip here? You have much more to lose than to win. I would check-raise all-in if I know there's a decent chance a) I'm ahead 2) my opponent will fold. I'm not sure it's worth the risk here, without a strong read, and with this hand.

[ QUOTE ]
Since I'm willing to put all of the chips in the middle, I don't mind calling the flop raise. In fact, most of the time I expect I will be about even when someone raises. With all of the dead money in the pot, I think the call is clear. Even if you are raised all-in, you invest 645 to win 1275 (1920 total). You only need to win 33.6% of the time to call a raise all-in, and you almost win that much in the worst-case scenario of QQ, 28.2%. (Actually, there are worse multi-way possibilities if you have neither the best draw nor the best made hand, e.g., you are almost dead against the nut flush draw and a set.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I find this whole reasoning very problematic. Why are you willing to put all the chips in the middle? Why are you playing a hand, when you're expecting to be *even* most of the time? Ther's no explanation for calling the raise on the flop, IMO. It's the time to take the decision - are you in (pushing) or out. Calling is the weakest option, with such short stacks, such a hand, and so early.

[ QUOTE ]
After calling the flop raise, enough is in the pot that it is right to call on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's the problem. You don't want to be in that spot, putting all you have with an unimproved TP, marginal kicker, and non-flush draw, against a player with superior position that is representing strength all the way.

[ QUOTE ]
I think checking the turn is fine. I don't agree that every time you are willing to call all-in, you should bet rather than check-call. That would mean that when you check, you can be pushed off the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you be puhed off, if you're going to call it anyway? Check-calling the turn COULD be fine, IF you're opponent wasn't betting and rasing up until now. Do you expect a free card after your limping-calling PF, and bet-calling on the flop? I wouldn't. So - all the money goes in, right? Well, if there was even the slightest chance he would fold a superior hand - you let it go. And if YOU have a superior hand, that's even a better reason to bet here.

[ QUOTE ]
You could be an underdog on the turn against someone scared enough to check behind on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even without being there, I can tell you his opponent WASN'T scared enough. How is my read?

[ QUOTE ]
The total loss was 920 chips, but I estimate less than 100 of that was from errors in play, possibly much less. Over 800 was just from bad luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this reasoning at all. He played a marginal hand from bad position, very early in the game, flopped a TP-marginal kicker, and practically busted (or almost busted, he's left with almost nothing) to a better hand. If you really think this is mostly bad luck, well, we have a very different perspective on this game. This is bad, passive, naive play. Luck has very little to do with it.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
limping with QJs UTG ... can't be a mistake worth more than a fraction of the t15 BB

True, but....

This is a classic example of a "Chaos Theory" hand, where a small error early can compound into catastrophe downstream. His hand became hard to fold at every decision point. That's why you don't play it in EP when the blinds are small.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it is only a small error to play it, then the later disasters are mainly due to bad luck (or later misplays). They should be offset almost completely by the times everything works and QJs wins a big pot.

Playing any hand in EP can lead to tough decisions, but sometimes you have to play poker. If possible, you would like to make life more difficult for your opponent than for yourself (hence my fondness for check-raising all-in), but it is only if you are making large errors that you should worry. Was that the case here? I think it makes a good discussion.

[ddubois]

1) I do not understand why everyone keeps repeating "non-nut flush" over and over. I don't see the relevance. If they are on a flush draw, I have top pair and and a 2:1 favorite, so all my chips in the middle is fine with me. The fact that my 1% double-gutshot straight is non-nut is equally irrelevant, KJ is not hanging around.

2) If they are on an overpair, I am 1:1 to win. When it comes back to me for 290 more with a 920 pot, how can I be unhappy with a coinflip? I'm getting 920:290, that's alot more than 1:1. Ok, I suppose I should assume effective odds (920:645) = coinflip still great for me. I should have considered AQ more strongly. I don't know why I convinced myself he had overpair so quickly; maybe because two of the queens were accounted for. But I never would have imagined QQ; and I don't think that's a mistake. Even considering the possibiltiy of QQ here would be seeing monsters under the bed.

2) And why are we talking about fold-equity after his re-raise? We may as well be talking about pink elephants and fairy godmothers, because I'm just as likely to see them in the game at that point.

I will accept the flop bet was too high (I thought pot-sized bets were de facto?), and calling the re-raise pre-flop is wrong. And maybe everything after that is a compounding error. But with that flop I have no compunctions about my chips going in the middle, and I don't think that's wrong. I guess your problem with my play purely the fact that my chips went in passively rather than aggressively? Once we were both pot-committed, I didn't feel like anything I did mattered; I either hit or I didn't. I do realize the math theory dictates I want my money in on the flop, not the turn, but when you say the turn call is error #5, are you saying I was supposed to fold?!?

And then you have to go and directly imply that I am less than decent. What's with that? I've only been playing SNGs for like 3 weeks, and I'm up $400, so while I don't know what scale you are grading on, I think I'm at least "decent". Maybe comments like that are why I'm insulted? I don't mind criticism - when it's constructive. Saying "wrong wrong wrong wrong /images/graemlins/smile.gif" does not qualify. Anyway, I'm not going to learn post-flop play better if I don't experiment some.

[PrayingMantis]

ddubois,

Everybody is doing mistakes when they start playing. That's very natural. People are doing MUCH worse mistakes than you did here, after playing SNGs for MUCH more than 3 weeks. We all learn from mistakes.

However, it is not good when you are making mistakes, and instead of learning from them, are trying to convinve yourself (sometimes with help of others) that they were good playes, and somehow you just got unlucky. This is not a matter of seeing monsters under the bed. I'm the last one who looks for them. But here, I repeat, you played a hand that is EASILY dominated or simply behind, from a very poor position, and against resistence. If you are happy with coin-flips early on, when you have a nice stack, you can find them in every corner. I don't see why the fact that you are facing a coin-flip (if he's on AA,KK), and play the coin-flip passively, is good. Good players should find better spots to put their money in.

About the non-nut draw. There are a few reasons why non-nut flush draws are problematic, but I guess you should learn it yourslef from expirience. If it wasn't a problem, than you might as well play any 2 suited cards, from any position, like many fish do. You can watch them at the tables, limping with J8s, and busting in similar situations like what happened to you. Few reasons why a draw to the nut is important: You usually have overcards as outs too, you know your opponent dosn't have the A of the same suit, and of course: you might hit your draw and bust someone who went all the way, how unfortunate for him, with a draw for the 3rd nut flush.

Nothing I've said in my posts here is a truth carved in stone. It's only a result of a lot of thinking about similar situations, and expirience. You can think I'm wrong, and that's fine. But always try to analyze your game with the most strictest criteria. Otherwise, you'll make the same mistakes again and again.

Edit: about the turn. Yes, it is pretty much impossible to fold there, and you shouldn't. But you simply have to try not to get to these situations, and if you do, IMO you should play them as aggressively as possible.

[HUSKER'66]

[ QUOTE ]
1) I do not understand why everyone keeps repeating "non-nut flush" over and over. I don't see the relevance. If they are on a flush draw, I have top pair and and a 2:1 favorite ....

[/ QUOTE ]

ddubois,

Don't know where you got these odds, but your wrong. If they are on a flush draw with an A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif ? /images/graemlins/diamond.gif your a 3/2 favorite.

Look...... we (myself and other posters that have responded to this thread) are not trying to hammer you. I know that you have taken offense to some of the responses that you have gotton as to why we feel that this was a bad play. (at the very least not so good)

I feel you posted this originally to show how you ran across some "bad" luck.

I just don't think that was the case. I stated how I would have played it differently, and the reasons as to why. You can obviously take the advice that has been giving to you, and add to your arsenal, or you can choose to ignore it and go on your own. I hope your open minded enough to choose the former.

Constructive criticism is just that.....constructive. Hopefully, the next time you find yourself in a similiar situation, you be able to take advantage of it....quite possibly in a way that helps make your wallet fatter.

I rarely ever post hands where I kicked ass and took everyones chips. I post hands where I have questions or doubts as to my play and am looking for others opinions. I have found that it has not only made me a better player, but it has helped fatten my wallet. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Play well,

Husker

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I feel that the individual decisions were at most marginally wrong. The main reason for the result was bad luck, not poor play.

[/ QUOTE ]

He made a sequence of wrong decisions. That's EXACTLY how you lose money in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you have heard of bad beats and calls based on pot-odds. You can lose from bad luck, and you can lose from making mistakes, and to assess your game properly you distinguish between the two.

If the original poster had made a tilting, hopeless call of a large bet on the river, calling all-in with 22 on an AA2AA board, that would have been a pure error. If the original poster had called an all-in preflop with AA and lost, that would have been completely due to bad luck. What actually happened was somewhere between the two, and proper accounting shows the vast majority of the 920 chip loss was from luck.

For example, consider the call on the turn, when the last 355 chips went in. The call seems correct, but suppose the correct conclusion was that there were precisely 8 outs. Then the investment of 355 should produce an average return of 349 from the 1920 pot, and it would be a mistake worth 6 chips. 8/44 of the time, the river would bring 1571 chips of good luck, and 36/44 of the time the river would bring 349 chips of bad luck. Assuming a loss, 98% of the loss was due to bad luck and 2% was due to the mistake. I think the turn call was completely correct, and the reasonable expectation was that the fair share of the 1920 pot was over 500 chips, so folding would be wrong by a lot.

How much, in chips, did each decision cost in comparison with perfect play? If the optimal strategy is mixed, this is hard to say, but assume that it is not. Here are some possibilities:

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Limp preflop: Nominal cost 15. I think this error cost about 2 chips of equity.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Calling the preflop raise: Nominal cost 50. I think this cost about 10 chips of equity. You would quickly call a minraise, so if you had put in 33 chips you would call 32 more. That suggests that calling isn't an error by more than about 18 chips, and I don't think calling a minraise is marginal.

By the way, I think it is right to call a raise with QJs here a small fraction of the time. I think this is a situation in which a mixed strategy is appropriate.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Betting out on the flop: Nominal cost 210. I suppose you would prefer a bet of a slightly different size, but I'm not sure what. I think trying to check-raise all-in is better by 30 chips. I don't think other bets around pot-size could be better by that much, particularly since your hand is so strong that it can't fold.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Calling the flop raise: Nominal cost 290. Folding can't be right, as pushing is better than folding except against a set, and the only reasonable set is QQ, which can be discounted because you see two queens. Is pushing much better than calling? Perhaps pushing would convince an opponent with KQ to fold, or would avoid letting JJ hit a 1-outer, but the folding equity isn't huge. I think calling rather than pushing costs 20 chips. If you disagree, specify a number with justification.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Checking the turn. Both players need only 8.1 outs to call. Maybe pushing would cause KQ to fold. A larger issue is that your opponent may be behind with outs, such as with A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif or TT. If a blank comes on the river, I don't think you get anything else from AKs, but you may lose a bunch if a flush card comes and you bet into the nuts. Checking gains if a hand that couldn't call bluffs on the turn, but I think it may be right to push in, by up to 30 chips. It depends on how tough it is to play the river correctly if your opponent checks behind.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Calling the turn bet: Nominal cost 355. It looks like there are at least 8 outs against every hand but 6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (for a turned straight and straight-flush draw), and many more against some. It takes 8.1 outs to justify the call. Easy, correct call. Error of 0 chips.

My guess is that there were about 92 +- 30 chips of mistakes in this disaster that cost 920 chips. This estimate could be inaccurate, but blaming the whole amount on misplays is wrong.

Proper accounting is important to me because I try to determine how costly my opponents' mistakes are. If they are making obvious mistakes, but the mistakes are not costly, the game may not be good.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You could be an underdog on the turn against someone scared enough to check behind on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even without being there, I can tell you his opponent WASN'T scared enough. How is my read?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really push on the turn every time with KQ? I don't. I just laid down KQ on a Q-high board in a tournament against UTG's set in a similar situation. But do what works for you.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The total loss was 920 chips, but I estimate less than 100 of that was from errors in play, possibly much less. Over 800 was just from bad luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this reasoning at all. He played a marginal hand from bad position, very early in the game, flopped a TP-marginal kicker, and practically busted (or almost busted, he's left with almost nothing) to a better hand. If you really think this is mostly bad luck, well, we have a very different perspective on this game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a mathematician. Your perspective may be different. Feel free to come up with your own estimates, but if you say errors rather than bad luck were responsible for all 920 chips lost, you are off by an order of magnitude. Roughly 9/10 of the loss came from reasonable gambles losing, such as gambling that the opponent did not flop something like top set, and that the flush might come.

There are many large errors people make, such as overcalling with a hand that is barely worth calling, or pushing a pair too far, or bluffing the unbluffable. The mistakes here were marginal, not huge leaks.


[ QUOTE ]
This is bad, passive, naive play. Luck has very little to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, when you face bad, passive, naive players, you win every pot? Or is poker still a game of skill and chance? Just because you disagree with a play does not mean the error is large, or was responsible for a disaster that followed.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Limp preflop: Nominal cost 15. I think this error cost about 2 chips of equity.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, come on now. Where did you get that number?

eastbay

[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
If they are on a flush draw with an A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif ? /images/graemlins/diamond.gif your a 3/2 favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right, I was only referring to the 2:1 odds of the flush hitting and my flush being worse, not considering the Ace out. It's worse with AdKd too; merely getting 1:1. This is a point I should not have glossed over.

[ QUOTE ]
have taken offense to some of the responses

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, with regards to our dialog, I specifically said "If he had raised more pre-flop I would have folded" and then you replied "I'm curious to what your play would be if someone came out with a raise of oh let's say 200-300t?". It just seemed like such a patronizing question. And there was the "I'm gonna have to transfer some money" crack, which frankly didn't set a good tone.

[ QUOTE ]
I feel you posted this originally to show how you ran across some "bad" luck.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't. I mean, it was unlucky that the case queen fell, giving me false hope and encouraging me to put my opponent on an overpair rather than a set, but that's not relevant to the rest of my thought process. Thinking I had good reasons, I made what I thought were borderline judgement calls, that weren't as close as I thought.

[ QUOTE ]
I post hands where I have questions or doubts as to my play and am looking for others opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do to. But I don't just blithely accept what I'm told without question. This was a very good thread and I did learn from it.

Thanks,
-Dan

[HUSKER'66]

Kewl..........

Play well,

Husker

[PrayingMantis]

I appriciate the fact you are a mathematician, and you were posting some very interesting stuff in the past. However, in this case, your "nominal" analasys of this hand, is the absolutely wrong way to look at SNG's hands.

I can argue with each and every point you make, but since my disagreemaent is general in its nature, I wont do that (unless you'd really like me to), and only refer to the main idea you present here.

NL SNGs (and the ones on party even more so), are about playing with EXTREMELY short stack (yes, even when blinds are 15/10), and about making +$EV decisions and NOT necessarily +CEV on every point. The combination of these two aspects, dictates a VERY cautios, (usually tight)-aggressive game, with hardly any room for "marginal" mistakes.

Limping-calling a raise with QJs from UTG is wrong not because of the X chips nominal lost, it's wrong because you are getting yourself into a marginal situation you shouldn't be in, and which is very difficult to play, even with much deeper stack, better position, AND a read - 3 things our hero does not have here. Hence, the probability our hero will be making more and more costly mistakes, for more and more of his stack, is much higher if he calls the raise PF with QJs, than if he folds. Actually, I'd rather be in that situation with 75s, than with QJs. I'm sure you understand why.

Speaking about bad/good luck in regard to this hand, is, forgive me, pure nonsense. If you don't understand when "bad luck" is taking place in one's game, you have a serious leak in your game. Bad luck is when you have the best of it, and get oudrawn. Bad luck is when you play aggressively with marginal hands against an opponent you read as weak-tight, and you happen to find him with a hand. Bad luck is when you have the 2nd nuts, and your opponent has the 1st.

This hand was not bad luck. It was weak play, that led to a bad result. Yes, he could have won it by hitting the flush on the river. So? Still a bad, "optimistic" game. He could have played it the same way with Q3s, and the argument about "bad luck" would still be valid. Because, again, you woudn't put your opponent on QQ, right? So, you have EXACTLY the same amount of outs, and you can make the same "nominal" calculations. This is a losing perspective.

To conclude: if you are viewing SNGs plays through a "nominal" perspective, chip-wise, you are making a huge mistake, IMO, much bigger than what the original poster here did. Believe it or not, precise "odds calculations", and "nominal assesments", like you do here, are almost IRRELAVANT in usual SNG game. It is all about outlasting your poor opponents (especially in the lower limits), and than outplaying your few last opponents, mainly by being aggressive, and making some correct calls. In the higher limits, it is taking advantage of some more marginal situations, playing according to more specific reads, but still, the last thing you want to do is get yourself, KNOWINGLY, into situations where you are behind to begin with, from all aspects. In our hand, open-RAISING from UTG with QJs is even better than limp-calling. Limp-calling a raise with this hand is a begining of a "disaster", simple as that.

The hand we are talking about IS bad, because it is about hoping to get lucky and flopping a nice flop. That's a primal SNG mistake. Let me put it to you this way: how would our hero play with a Q high flop, but no such flush draw? I guarentee you he'll be in deep trouble, and so will many others.

Last word: few of your comments are really strange. This is one of them, for example: "Do you really push on the turn every time with KQ? I don't. I just laid down KQ on a Q-high board in a tournament against UTG's set in a similar situation. But do what works for you."

I don't see what you are trying to say here. What turn? What is the hand? Who is my opponent? How did I get with KQ to that point? What are the stacks? What is the pot? What was the PF and flop action? What are you talking about??

[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
how would our hero play with a Q high flop, but no such flush draw? I guarentee you he'll be in deep trouble

[/ QUOTE ]
"the flop had been merely Q-high or merely a flush draw, I would not have lost my stack"

I probably would have put out a small 100 feeler bet, then folded to a raise.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I probably would have put out a small 100 feeler bet, then folded to a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you've just lost almost 15% your stack on this hand. And what if your opponent just calls your "feeler" bet? Or just makes a "tiny" raise? and turn is a rag? or turn gives you 2p, but there's a possible flush out there? You have a terrible position to play it, you have a very problematic hand, you have to make tough decisions, you don't know where you stand. Do you need more reasons not to play this?

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Limp preflop: Nominal cost 15. I think this error cost about 2 chips of equity.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, come on now. Where did you get that number?


[/ QUOTE ]

It was a guess. Do you think it was wrong? Do you have a better estimate? The other numbers were also guesses, but I would be surprised if they were off by a lot.

People say to complete a 2/3 blind with any two. There is less chance of having to fold preflop afterwards, but the position postflop is worse. So 32o and 72o are worth at least 1/3 BB. In comparison, I think QJs should be worth more than 1 BB if no one raises, as QJs wins 3 times as much (30.1% rather than 10.7%) in a random 5-way hand (http://gocee.com/poker/HE_Val_Sort.htm). QJs actually wins about as much as AQo. What is the probability that no one raises after UTG limps? If it is 2/3, then QJs is worth at least 2/3 BB assuming that QJs always folds to a raise. That would give an upper bound of 5 chips on the error.

Would you open-limp with QJs from middle position? I'll assume so. If you limp with it and several people fold, you are not in much different shape from open-limping in middle position. So after a few (not unlikely) folds your equity has improved to be over 15, and this possibility contributes a few chips to your equity. It suggests that your equity is not far below 15 when you limp UTG. When there are limpers immediately after you, you still have some equity; I'm inclined to think you have more equity since QJs plays well multi-way and extra limpers may discourage a raise.

Any method will involve some guesses, and the results may be only narrowly applicable. It could be that in a perfectly played game, it would be right to limp by 3 chips, but that this would be wrong in practice in most games by 0-10 chips. Another problem is that a mixed strategy might be right. I'll stick with my guess that limping UTG with QJs is wrong by about 2/15 of the BB when the SB is 2/3 of the BB.

[PrayingMantis]

I must reply to some of the points you make here, since I feel they are way off, and deserve some criticism, especially since you make them look very mathematically accurate.


[ QUOTE ]
People say to complete a 2/3 blind with any two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completing the blinds for 2/3 with *almost* any two is a completely different case. It is based on the fact that there were few limpers ahead, and you are playing for implied odds, gained by people [Edit: from people! not "by people". Sorry, but your English prepositions are really a pain in the a** sometimes /images/graemlins/grin.gif] , who'll make mistakes post flop.

[ QUOTE ]
In comparison, I think QJs should be worth more than 1 BB if no one raises, as QJs wins 3 times as much (30.1% rather than 10.7%) in a random 5-way hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is if you go all the way to the river! against random hands! Don't you have any consideration for the hands you'll USUALLY play against, especially if raised, and the heat you'll have to take on later streets? Or the money you'll have to put in, in order to make poeople make mistakes by folding or calling?

[ QUOTE ]
Would you open-limp with QJs from middle position? I'll assume so.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a rule, open-limping with ANY hand, is a mistake in NL. Only reasons to open-limp: 1) doing it with AA,KK, if you have a strong feeling you'll get reraised by aggressive players behind. 2) Doing it in order to let people know you do open-limp sometimes, and let them raise you and fold, and then open-limp with a monster, making them assume you're ready to fold again. This is very player-dependent, sophisticated move, since it's an image-building move. 3) open limping with PP in *early* stages, in a table which is passive-(PF)-aggressive-post-flop, to try and hit a set and get paid for it. Otherwise, open-limping is basically a mistake. You much better raise (or fold) than open-limp, no matter with what hand.

And again, your "nominal" calculations are completely irrelevant for these SNGs. Actually, they might justify open-limping with a big variety of hands, and then calling quite a big raise - since that's never more than a "marginal mistake at most", especially if someone else has called too. That's a sure way to lose money and get frequently into dangarous situations.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
I appriciate the fact you are a mathematician, and you were posting some very interesting stuff in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great. Ok, when I say something about luck, I'm telling you as a mathematician. I'm not passing on fallacies and urban legends. Luck is something that falls into my area of professional expertise, though I take out the jargon like "Doob decomposition of submartingales." What I say may be counterintuitive (and I sometimes go out of my way to say correct, counterintuitive things), but it should be logically consistent.


[ QUOTE ]
NL SNGs (and the ones on party even more so), are about playing with EXTREMELY short stack (yes, even when blinds are 15/10), and about making +$EV decisions and NOT necessarily +CEV on every point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you telling me that? I've discussed the difference between E$ and EChips many times in these forums. I've run simulations and created models of the final table dynamics. You saw my analysis on the "Bubbling" thread last week where I estimated that it was right by $90 to fold AK in a situation in a $215 SNG, where getting the chips in was obviously +EChips.

Here, it's not close to the bubble. Chip value is slightly sublinear, but not tremendously so, particularly since the original poster covers the opponent. I intentionally left out the conversion to $ because I didn't think this complication was important here.

If you feel that it is overwhelmingly important for this hand, I'm surprised. You didn't mention it in your first few posts. Feel free to explain why you now think it is important here, but please be more precise than you were in the "Bubbling" thread.


[ QUOTE ]
Speaking about bad/good luck in regard to this hand, is, forgive me, pure nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is bad luck when you have a draw on the turn, call all-in based on the draw, and miss. It would have been good luck if the draw had hit. The luck can even be quantified. Does that really seem like pure nonsense to you? If so, the fault is yours.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Luck is something that falls into my area of professional expertise.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO, "luck", per-ce, is not a mathematical term. It is much more a psychologiacl, subjective, laymen's conceptualization of random occurencies. Show me one work that deals with a mathematic defintion of "luck", and I'll be very surprised and thankful. When we are speaking about "bad luck" in poker, we are, generally, speaking about situations where we played it as best as we could, and found ourselves in a significant (more or less) unprobable ending, which caused us to lose money. I gave a few examples in a previous post. I am convinced this QJs is not a "bad luck" case, if you DO play it properly, from begining to end, whether you win or lose.

[ QUOTE ]
What I say may be counterintuitive (and I sometimes go out of my way to say correct, counterintuitive things), but it should be logically consistent.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but what you say isn't counterintuitive. For me, at least, these are concepts I was thinking about again and again (and read about here, many times), and find them to be wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Here, it's not close to the bubble. Chip value is slightly sublinear, but not tremendously so, particularly since the original poster covers the opponent. I intentionally left out the conversion to $ because I didn't think this complication was important here.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect if you are perceving yourself as one of the strongest players in the game, which is the case many times (if your ROI is fairly good). If you are not - then you are right, $EV is about equal to CEV, and you should take any marginal +CEV situation. However - if you do take it, you almost always better play it strongly, as opposed to the play in this hand.

When you are one of the strongest players (in lower/mid buy-in's, I find myself, many times, as the strongest player in the field. I'm sure this is correct for many 2+2ers), your chips clearly worth more than their relative share in the pool. Therefore, early on, taking marginal +CEV move, is wrong, IMO. And there is one more very important thing: SNGs, generally speaking, is a bubble situation by definition, from start to end, as opposed to multi-tournaments. You are very close to the money, blinds are relatively high and going higher very fast, and there is a short period of play-time.


[ QUOTE ]
Feel free to explain why you now think it is important here, but please be more precise than you were in the "Bubbling" thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

I hope what I said above is more precise than what I said the "bubbling" thread. I don't remember exactly each argument I make on this board... /images/graemlins/grin.gif (I hope this grin wont get me in trouble...).

[ QUOTE ]
It is bad luck when you have a draw on the turn, call all-in based on the draw, and miss. The luck can even be quantified. Does that really seem like pure nonsense to you? If so, the fault is yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, in our particular hand, you shouldn't be making decisions on the turn. The decision-making process should have been ended on the flop. That's what the short stacks and the pot dictate. As I already said before, it is not reasonable anymore to fold on the turn. But it's better to push than to check-call. I really don't care about the result here: it's like discussing whether it's luckier to hit "tails" or "heads" on one coin-flip, or something similar. I don't feel unlucky when I lose to a coin-flip (if that was the case here, which actually wasn't). I don't feel lucky when I win a coin-flip. However, I try always to estimate if I'm going into a coin-flip, and if I want this coin-flip at this specific point. That's a very important difference.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
I do like your line of check-raising all-in the flop. I'm not sure exactly why it's better, but any line that gets those 355 chips in when I'm 1:3 to catch my flush/trips/2pair/runner gutshot instead of 1:4 has got to be superior.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really get what you meant by this response. It kind of felt sarcastic to me. My point was that a check-raise gives you a lot more fold equity than the line you chose. This is an excellent flop for your hand, but you're still no better than a coin flip against many holdings, so even though you're willing to get all the chips in the middle, you're also quite happy to get a fold.

[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really get what you meant by this response. It kind of felt sarcastic to me. My point was that a check-raise gives you a lot more fold equity than the line you chose.

[/ QUOTE ]I wasn't being sarcastic. I meant what I said,- it's mathematiclaly superior to get my money in when there are two cards to come, than to wait until there is one card that missed and one card to come.

I don't think any hands that I'm a coinflip against will fold however.