Another hand with a (somewhat) easy answer

[adanthar]

This hand builds off the last one I posted.

It's the same low buyin SNG or a different one or who knows or cares. You've been raising a bunch, or not raising a bunch (it doesn't matter because, again, nobody at these limits knows or cares.) Anyway, a couple of people limp, you get QQ on the button, raise to 60 and they call. They like calling.

The flop is 99T rainbow or possibly 2 suited. The first limper, whose VP$IP is 40 through 10 hands, bets 200 into the pot of 215. The second limper, whose VP$IP is 90, calls.

1)What type of hand does the first limper probably have?

2)How often does the second limper not have you beat?

[texasrattlers]

Are you going to post the answer this time? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
... whose VP$IP is 40 through 10 hands ...

[/ QUOTE ]

What is VP$IP?

Not knowing what VP$IP is, I would put the first bettor on a T or low pockets. And the 2nd limper has you beat 1/2 the time. Just my hunch, I do not have a lot of confidence in playing these hands so I would be interested in finding out what the "answer" is.

As a side note not relevant to the main point of your post, I would raise to 100 PF and then maybe only have to deal w/ one other player on this flop which makes it much easier.

[adanthar]

I did post it last time [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Look deeper in that thread.

VP$IP is a PT term - voluntarily put $ in pot. 40 means he likes calling. 90 means he only needs to see 1 card.

edit: If you overraise PF because you think they'll call anyway, it's a good thing. If you do it because you want most of them to fold, it's a leak.

[texasrattlers]

[ QUOTE ]
edit: If you overraise PF because you think they'll call anyway, it's a good thing. If you do it because you want most of them to fold, it's a leak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't mean to hijack the thread (but I will anyway [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]), but w/ QQ-AA you do want to limit the field some. Point taken about getting more chips in PF, but what is the optimal # of callers that you hope for PF w/QQ-AA? Is it 2? 3 seems too many, 1 means greater chance of your QQ-AA holding up and oftentimes that 1 player will give you all his chips postflop anyway.

[jeffraider]

[ QUOTE ]
1)What type of hand does the first limper probably have?

2)How often does the second limper not have you beat?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the first limper for a T and a broadway, and I think the second limper has you beat no more than maybe a third of the time. He's likely got a T as well, or 88 or something like that. Maybe even QJ, something like that. AA or KK is fairly unlikely, as you would have been reraised preflop by nearly everyone, but the odd time someone will just call with KK and look for a non-A flop, about the same frequency you'll see slowplayed Aces, I bet.

This is just a guess from a SnG newbie.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
[Don't mean to hijack the thread (but I will anyway [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]), but w/ QQ-AA you do want to limit the field some. Point taken about getting more chips in PF, but what is the optimal # of callers that you hope for PF w/QQ-AA? Is it 2? 3 seems too many, 1 means greater chance of your QQ-AA holding up and oftentimes that 1 player will give you all his chips postflop anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing about limiting the field is that I want to limit the field *with respect to people that haven't acted yet* (and especially the blinds since I can't read them.) I already know what people that limped in have - ace rag, two suited cards, 87o, etc. etc. etc. Four of them can come on in on every flop when I have queens and I won't care as long as they give me some chips PF and the board is T high.

People who call every hand, especially in front, don't worry me. Occasionally they'll have an ace and an ace will flop and I will say 'oh well' and fold. More often, they'll have a jack, a jack will flop, they'll shovel their chips in with five outs and I will thank them.

I am much more worried if a tight button coldcalls and I'm called on a rag flop. *That's* trouble.

----

To go back to the hand, there's one relatively important thing I left out: The second limper does not think much, if at all, before calling.

(Does it change your answer if he does think before calling?)

[morgan180]

First:

[ QUOTE ]
They like calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is f-ing hilarious. So true.

Second:

1. KT/QT /suited/ [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

2. the second limper has you beat about 12-20% of the time.

I would think you're way ahead here.

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
The first limper, whose VP$IP is 40 through 10 hands

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't read a whole lot into this stat unless you actually saw the hands he was calling/raising with. A rock could have this stat through 10 hands very easily. Heck 2 of the 10 hands he played could have been completing the small blind.

Anyway, here's my take.

[ QUOTE ]
1)What type of hand does the first limper probably have?

[/ QUOTE ]

A low pocket pair, or maybe some kind of coordinated ten.

[ QUOTE ]
2)How often does the second limper not have you beat?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not very often. 10-15% maybe? There are a ton of hands here that give him top pair or some sort of draw, especially if it is a 2-suited flop. He will call any size bet with any flush or straight draw.

[adanthar]

OK, a partial answer below:

The first guy's hand is pretty obvious and what everyone said - a low pair or some sort of T.

However, the important thing here is this: once the second limper calls, your play greatly depends on whether you think the first limper - not the second - will call an all in.

Why?