Limping QQ under the gun
 

(cross-posted in MHS NL)

Hi,

I am a member of another poker forum, and I posted a very controversial hand on there that generated a bunch of heated debate.

I claimed that in a deep stack no limit game, it is standard for me to limp a hand as big as QQ under the gun.

Before I divulge into reasons, I just want to hear some thoughts here. Can this be right? Or is it always wrong? etc.

Thanks,
Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

It's all table dependent and the specifics of the hand matter a great deal.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

Depends on what type of table you are at. Agressive table, sometimes with KK or AA hoping for a raise in a later position. I think it is asking for trouble with QQ or less.

So what is your play when you limp with QQ and there is 4 other limpers and the flop is Axx? You asking for A7 to take your money.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's all table dependent and the specifics of the hand matter a great deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi PoBoy,

This is part of my original question.

If this can be correct, under what conditions can you think of where this can be correct?

Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
Depends on what type of table you are at. Agressive table, sometimes with KK or AA hoping for a raise in a later position. I think it is asking for trouble with QQ or less.

So what is your play when you limp with QQ and there is 4 other limpers and the flop is Axx? You asking for A7 to take your money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Bco,

I never said that I limped with the intent to reraise. I do that with AA/KK, but not *necessarily* with QQ. I don't mind seeing an unraised flop with QQ here. Sometimes, I will limp-reraise QQ here depending on the quality of the raiser, his stack, my ability to isolate him, etc.

As for the four-way unraised Axx flop, yes I realize that happens sometime, but why is this terrible? I can check/fold pretty easily.

Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

So what your mainly saying is that you play QQ for set value, and basically no different than 77,99, etc. right?

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
So what your mainly saying is that you play QQ for set value, and basically no different than 77,99, etc. right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question.

Although it seems like that, the answer is no.

Mostly, it's just that I have a huge appreciation for position, moreso in deep stack poker. I hate playing big pots with vulnerable hands out of position.

I would much rather play a small pot here and check/fold "bad" flops and play the "good" ones. The good ones obviously include a set, but they can also include ragged flops (with or without an overcard), etc.

So no, not just for set value.

Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

The problem with playing QQ for no raise is essentially the same problem AK has- any 1 pair hand has little chance of winning in large, multi-way pots.

Take in account the discussion over AK in a recent thread. The amount of hands your opponents can hold are easily disguised, and you will often be in the dark upon their holdings (being OOP with a hand that improves 1-5 by the river). How do you like any Ace, any King, or basically ATC having a good chance of outdrawing you?

So do you play very passively with the hand postflop? I can only see that happening, as you say you don't like being OOP in a larg(er) pot. To me, defining my hand means more to me than pot control/position. Do you raise with AK in this spot?

Edit: the topic title AKo in NL? by DWwarrior sort've reminds me of this.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

In poker, there are never any absolutes. That said, limping QQ might be correct, or not so incorrect about 20% of the time. I won't go into the table conditions that might make this play +EV, but I will list (just a few) reasons why this move is definitely -EV 80% of the time.
(1) The odds that an Ace or a King will flop are 1.3 to 1, in other words it will happen 43% of the time.
(2)High pocket pairs (including AA and KK) play much better against one or two opponents. Please look at some of the numbers when you get the chance, you will see that the winning percentages for high pocket pairs decrease rapidly, as the field goes from 2 to 4-5 players.
(3)Assuming that you have some reads on your opponents, raising will help you define their hands.

These are just some basic facts and stats, and as I mentioned, mixing your play is always a good idea. I just feel that "checking and folding" QQ is just giving up too much value.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
(1) The odds that an Ace or a King will flop are 1.3 to 1, in other words it will happen 43% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see the significane of this.

These numbers don't change whether I raise or limp.


[ QUOTE ]
(2)High pocket pairs (including AA and KK) play much better against one or two opponents. Please look at some of the numbers when you get the chance, you will see that the winning percentages for high pocket pairs decrease rapidly, as the field goes from 2 to 4-5 players.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't really care much about winning percentages; I care about winning money.


[ QUOTE ]
3)Assuming that you have some reads on your opponents, raising will help you define their hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a grey area, but I believe that my opponents' hands tend to be better defined with a bet on the flop in a small, unraised pot, than they do with a continuation bet on a flop in a big, raised pot.

If the reasons aren't clear, I'll elaborate.


[ QUOTE ]
I just feel that "checking and folding" QQ is just giving up too much value.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not doing that the 7 out of 8 times I don't flop a set, so I'm not just check/folding every non-Q flop.


Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

If you're comfortable check/folding QQ I guess it's ok... but I think a 5bb raise from early position will win you more money in the long run than a check/fold attitude.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
How do you like any Ace, any King, or basically ATC having a good chance of outdrawing you?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't mind, precisely because I have much less interest in this smaller pot, since I'm out of position.

Again, it's not really about winning the hand or the pot; it's about winning money, right?

Since I play queens differently *postflop* by limping them preflop, it stands that I believe I make more money in this way than I do by raising preflop and playing them "standard" postflop.

In other words, I don't mind if any two cards outdraw me. I would mind much more so if I had raised preflop.

Just to reemphasize, this is precisely for deep stacks that I'm talking about. If I have 50 bb or 60 bb in front of me, I am clearly raising preflop.


[ QUOTE ]
So do you play very passively with the hand postflop? I can only see that happening, as you say you don't like being OOP in a larg(er) pot. To me, defining my hand means more to me than pot control/position. Do you raise with AK in this spot?

[/ QUOTE ]
I tend to play passively on most hands postflop when I'm out of position. This might be a pot limit omaha symptom, but I tend to respect position to a huge extent when it comes to big-bet poker. I don't mind letting my opponent retain the lead; this minimizes and possibly even negates his positional advantage in some cases.

To answer your question, yes I limp AK here too. I limp AA and KK here too, but for a different reason--just to be able to reraise. If no one raises behind me and it's a limped flop, it's not a disaster; I just play the hand differently. That doesn't mean I check/fold when I don't hit a set, but obviously I keep in my mind that the dynamics of the hand are much different.

My point is just that I am extremely tight out of position, both in the hands I play and the hands I raise (which is usually 0%, with the exception of those for deceptive purposes).


[ QUOTE ]
Edit: the topic title AKo in NL? by DWwarrior sort've reminds me of this.

[/ QUOTE ]
I will look at it. Thanks!


Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

you can do it. you can do whatever you want to and be creative

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

LOL...I'm not surprised that you don't get the significance of my 1st point. I'm only going to explain this point, and leave you to learn the others the hard way.
It's true that the numbers (43% of the time an A or K will flop) when you have QQ don't change. The point that you are missing here is that you have the power to change the number of players that will play hands that contain an A or a K. By raising pre-flop, you can significantly reduce the likelihood that your opponents will have an A or a K. Most good players won't call a raise from EP with Axs or KJ. I'm not going to go into the numbers to illustate this point any further, but I hope that you (the guy who is intersted in "winning money") can see that by eliminating even one potential player with Axs or KJ or KT, you have increased the expectation of this hand. There is still a 43% chance that an A or a K will flop, but the odds that an opponent is holding (one of these cards) now makes this outcome far less "significant."
FYI...Players interested in "winning money" like this hand...and will play it correctly (not passively)... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
LOL...I'm not surprised that you don't get the significance of my 1st point.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I did, but I was setting up my next point.


[ QUOTE ]
By raising pre-flop, you can significantly reduce the likelihood that your opponents will have an A or a K. Most good players won't call a raise from EP with Axs or KJ. I'm not going to go into the numbers to illustate this point any further, but I hope that you (the guy who is intersted in "winning money") can see that by eliminating even one potential player with Axs or KJ or KT, you have increased the expectation of this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
The thing is, you haven't shown me that this increases my *expectation*; you have only shown me that it increases my *winning chances*, or the likelihood that my hand is best at showdown.

Again, this doesn't tell me that this wins me the most money.


Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

limping QQ utg in full ring is fine. often times if you are equal or not as good as the people behind you postflop, its not such a bad idea.

having a raised pot thats called say 5 way, where you have to almost autobet any flop where you have an overpair sucks.

do what makes sense to you.

Theres nothing crazy or controversial about limping QQ.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

Obviously it can be right. If people don't see how it can be right, they fundamentally do not understand poker. Especially deep stack poker.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

well... I want you to explain it to me TWP, because maybe I don't get it.

The *only* reason I think you should limp is for reraise preflop value, or set value. Is there another reason?

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
limping QQ utg in full ring is fine. often times if you are equal or not as good as the people behind you postflop, its not such a bad idea.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hi amoeba,

The thing is, I believe I play better postflop than the whole table, or close to it. I am not limping it for that reason.

It is mostly because I feel most of my profit comes from hands where I'm in position, so I tend to play squeaky tight out of position. I also tend to play passively out of position to exploit most of my opponents' overaggressive auto-betting tendencies and the like.

In other words, I feel that my postflop edge is *bigger* when I limp preflop.


[ QUOTE ]
having a raised pot thats called say 5 way, where you have to almost autobet any flop where you have an overpair sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is part of the reason.

You could make the argument that I don't *have* to autobet any flop, but then it's not much different from playing it like I do. You just miss out on perhaps a few bb's at most of equity. I'm sure those will be more than made up for by the deception you get on a big pot-sized turn/river bet when you hit a favorable flop.


[ QUOTE ]
do what makes sense to you.

Theres nothing crazy or controversial about limping QQ.

[/ QUOTE ]
While I appreciate this statement, I do not pretend that I am perfect at this game. I bring this up solely to analyze it and evaluate whether what I am doing actually does have the highest EV.


Thanks for the reply,
Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

Let me post the reasons I stated and see if people will respond to more specific aspects of my stance.


[ QUOTE ]
if my stack is shallower, 50 bb for example, this is an easy raise. but, with a deep stack, 200 bb's for example, i genuinely don't raise it.




mostly it just has to do with the huge overlays on the turn and river when you play deep-stack poker.




since position is by FAR the biggest and most important holy grail of factors when it comes to deep stacks, i'd much rather sacrifice a *tiny* amount of money that comes from pushing a preflop equity edge than to play a big pot out of position with semi-deep stacks.




i mean, what's the harm in limping, letting the pot be multiway, and check/folding a bad flop? what's the harm in limping, someone raising behind you, and you being able to now reraise if the villian's stack is smaller?




i genuinely passionately intensely hate playing big pots out of position. i can't emphasize it enough, i hate it. i play sooo tight out of position, but QQ is obviously too good to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]
...

[ QUOTE ]
in case i wasn't clear about overlays...




a bad preflop decision costs you maybe 3 - 5 bb's. a pot sized river decision costs you maybe 50 - 100 bb's.




position *vastly* increases the value of all your hands, on all streets. this means that playing a hand out of position can lead to an expensive 50 - 100 bb mistake on the river.




i'd much rather lose a little preflop value worth a fraction of a few bb's than force myself to make a bad river decision worth a fraction of 50 bb's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

Once upon a time an old wise man told me to get your money into the middle of the table when you have the best cards. I now realize that he may have been suffering from Alzheimer's.
Thank you for enlightening me.
Seriously though...thanks for the discussion. I do see your points as well, and I do think that you sound like a solid, thinking, player...good luck and may the flop bring a queen (when you are on the button.) [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

The main reason is position and pot control. If you're playing OOP against tough opponents with deep stacks you don't really want to play a big pot with just one pair. So you can limp QQ and then try to play a small pot if you flop an overpair or a big one if you flop a set. Seems reasonable to me. I'm not saying I wouldn't raise it, because of course I would, but I am saying that I may also limp it. No reason not to. I don't think you give up a lot by not raising it preflop and if you gain something postflop it is almost certainly worth it.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
Once upon a time an old wise man told me to get your money into the middle of the table when you have the best cards. I now realize that he may have been suffering from Alzheimer's.
Thank you for enlightening me.
Seriously though...thanks for the discussion. I do see your points as well, and I do think that you sound like a solid, thinking, player...good luck and may the flop bring a queen (when you are on the button.) [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, I wasn't sure what to make of the first part of your post.

Thanks for the compliment, but again, I don't pretend to believe I am a perfect player or anything near it. I brought up this discussion precisely to analyze if what I'm doing is good/bad/okay.

Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
The main reason is position and pot control. If you're playing OOP against tough opponents with deep stacks you don't really want to play a big pot with just one pair. So you can limp QQ and then try to play a small pot if you flop an overpair or a big one if you flop a set.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, this sums up basically everything I've been trying to say.

I really have a problem with brevity, can you tell? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying I wouldn't raise it, because of course I would

[/ QUOTE ]
This made me laugh. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]


Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

In case anyone is interested in following the mid/high stakes no limit forum discussion:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=3570444

Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

I don't like limping with QQ UTG/UTG+1 because at these stakes there is alotta limping and people playing Ax and Kx liberally.

Let's not forget why we raise...

1. To thin the field
2. To get money into the pot
3. For information

Without raising you are probably going to face a large number of opponents OOP without any idea of what kinda hands they have. You'll end paying off hands that wouldn't have called a PFR, losing to hands that you'd be able to fold had you raised and had a read on the situation.

Edit: The only situation where I would limp with QQ in EP is if an overly-aggro was on the button or in the stradle. Someone who always raises in these postions, and makes a standard conitinuation bet, but would fold a hand like AT,AJ,KJ, etc. to your EP raise because of my table image.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

Here's a thought experiment for you guys: what if your lineup is a bunch of nasty fuckers. If you limp UTG, then everyone else behind you will either limp if they have good implied odds hands, raise if they think they can isolate, or fold if they have real trash and not much chance of isolating. If you raise, they will call with good implied odds hands, raise monsters, but will also raise some total trash or SCs or small PPs or whatever if they think they can isolate you. Everyone has 400bb.

Think about different courses of action. I think limping QQ UTG can be pretty sweet here.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

you aren't as good out of position postflop, thats why you limp. if you have a big edge postflop against your opponents even out of position, of course you would raise preflop for value.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

Thanks, this is good reasoning

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

I'd much rather limp AK out of position than QQ.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like limping with QQ UTG/UTG+1 because at these stakes there is alotta limping and people playing Ax and Kx liberally.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I never mentioned the stakes. I am specifically talking about stakes between 25c/50c NL (with stacks $100+) and $1/$2 NL (with stacks $500+).

I am curious how the strategy changes as the stakes change. If you say this is not optimal at "small stakes" (meaning $25 NL or $50 NL or smaller??), does it become optimal at higher stakes? Why?

Also, I've addressed the Ax / Kx issue. Yes, raising increases my winning chances, but that doesn't necessarily increase my expectation the most.


[ QUOTE ]
Let's not forget why we raise...

1. To thin the field
2. To get money into the pot
3. For information

Without raising you are probably going to face a large number of opponents OOP without any idea of what kinda hands they have. You'll end paying off hands that wouldn't have called a PFR, losing to hands that you'd be able to fold had you raised and had a read on the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
I play the hand differently postflop if I limp preflop. Of course I'm not going to pay off a bunch of hands just because I have QQ.

To address the reasons:

1. Thin the field - I have already addressed this. I don't mind if more Ax and Kx comes along. Even though my winning chances decrease, I believe my expectation does not.

2. Build the pot - Not something I want to do when I'm out of position, that's my main point.

3. Information - I've stated that I believe the information gained from raising preflop isn't really reliable in the loose games that I play in. In fact, I've gone so far as to argue that the information gained from limping and making a bet into a small pot on the flop is more reliable than raising and making a continuation bet in a big pot.


Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
you aren't as good out of position postflop, thats why you limp. if you have a big edge postflop against your opponents even out of position, of course you would raise preflop for value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting.

What I meant was, I believe I still retain a postflop edge if I limp queens and play them selectively passively when I'm out of position.

As in, I can let my overaggressive late position opponents bet and give me money on favorable flops whereas I can just check/fold on unfavorable ones.

I just mean that my postflop edge is smaller if I raise with queens preflop out of position.

So either way, I believe I have an edge postflop, but that doesn't justify raising preflop if I believe limping creates a bigger postflop edge.

Am I making sense?

Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd much rather limp AK out of position than QQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain?

Thanks,
Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with playing QQ for no raise is essentially the same problem AK has- any 1 pair hand has little chance of winning in large, multi-way pots.

Take in account the discussion over AK in a recent thread. The amount of hands your opponents can hold are easily disguised, and you will often be in the dark upon their holdings (being OOP with a hand that improves 1-5 by the river). How do you like any Ace, any King, or basically ATC having a good chance of outdrawing you?

So do you play very passively with the hand postflop? I can only see that happening, as you say you don't like being OOP in a larg(er) pot. To me, defining my hand means more to me than pot control/position. Do you raise with AK in this spot?

Edit: the topic title AKo in NL? by DWwarrior sort've reminds me of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of the game is to win money, not to win pots. Limping QQ up front can help you to win money by disguising the strength of your hand, and enabling you to get away from bad flops for cheap when OOP.

AK has the same properties. If you limp, then opponents are much more likely to play AQ/AJ/AT, and you then have a good chance of getting some money out of them on an A-high flop. If you always raise AK utg, then often those hands that you would like to stay in, actually fold.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

I remember back in the day in the UB games raising anything other than AA / KK UTG could get you in a lot of trouble. Admittedly the stacks were only 100BB, but the texture of the game just made raising QQ or JJ from EP really unfavorable.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
I remember back in the day in the UB games raising anything other than AA / KK UTG could get you in a lot of trouble. Admittedly the stacks were only 100BB, but the texture of the game just made raising QQ or JJ from EP really unfavorable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate on what texture those games had?

Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

the games were really tight. Lot of nutpeddlers. Now, initially this sounds like a game in which you want to be raising anything from any position, but there is another condition.

I was/am a beginning player. And to LAG it up against very carefull opponents you need a great ounce of skill, and a great ounce of not getting married to your pairs.

For that reason I kept myself out of trickey situations. For example, if I know I'm only going to get called by hands I'm a small favorite or a big dogg against in these games I'm going to refrain from building a big pot with hands that are quite vulnurable, such as QQ or JJ. Escpecially in these games they were hands with which I stood to win a little or lose a whole lot.

So the perfect situation for limping my QQ and JJ UTG was not due to table texture alone, but also had a great deal to do with my own overall skill, or lack thereof.

The reason I thought the texture of the game influenced my decision was as followed: if I raise that QQ UTG, and (apart from me flopping a set) I get action on the hand beyond the flop, more often that not I have to let the hand go. And if this was the case, I might as well have been raising with 72o in that position. Because if it were to come to a showdown with these players I would by far more oftne be looking at a better hand than mine rather than a worse one.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

The fact that I am OOP makes me want to play my good hands more strongly pre-flop. I want to define my hand. I will also be betting the flop strongly and will then evaluate my postion after the responce to my flop bet.

I don't like to limp with QQ in early position, AA-KK I will for variation, and will be hoping to get to re-raise pre-flop.

But QQ is too good and too vunerable IMO. I am not playing QQ for set value.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

Good discussion and its not a terrible idea but I have no doubt that you're leaving money on the table if you do this at small stakes, particulally at NL50/NL100. I base this on a few assumptions.

1)QQ is a very difficult hand to play multiway out of position

2)QQ is a very good hand headsup or three handed even out of position

3) There is no reason you have to go to the wall with just an overpair, you'll get plenty of opportunity to dump it with big stacks

4)People will call a large raise with a wide range of preflop holding, many of which you will be dominating.

5)Althought the preflop range is wide it is predicatable giving you a far greater headstart on hand reading

6)At MHNL there is excellent deception value in limpcalling with QQ because players will struggle to read your hand and will lose big pots down the line, however at SSNL people are not trying to read your hand, they don't care waht you have so the deception value is gone.

7)If you raise and the continuation bet most flops you may not gain that much infomation about your opponents hand but he won't know any more about yours either.

8)People at SSNL arn't complete idiots and will lay hands down, limping and going mental with a set in a multiway pot is only going to stack unfortunates that hit the flop hard but not as hard as you (two pairs and undersets) which is no good.

9) People get attached to big pots. You can get people to the felt with TPTK when you've raised and CBed (because they don't believe you), but that will not happen if you've limped.

10)People love limping Ax and even Kx, espeically if there are lots of other limpers, but probably won't play them for a decent raise, so you're condeming yourself to defeat unnesseccarily on a lot of flops. If you've thinned the field theres no reason an A or K coming down prevents you from taking the pot.

When I first saw this thread I assumed you'd just got burned too often by QQ and were playing passively but that doesn't seem to be the case. Nice hand.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

I think limping with QQ (unless the stack is thin, like 40 bb) utg is always wrong, with KK or AA it might be a good play to limp if the conditions is right.