Limping QQ under the gun
 

(cross-posted in SS 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
 

Hi, I like posting random preflop questions without regard to blinds, stacks, table texture, image, and table flow. Is my move better then this other standard move?

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

i dont think i can post in the NL forum anymore.
every thread so so stupid.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi, I like posting random preflop questions without regard to blinds, stacks, table texture, image, and table flow. Is my move better then this other standard move?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, always.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi, I like posting random preflop questions without regard to blinds, stacks, table texture, image, and table flow. Is my move better then this other standard move?

[/ QUOTE ]

he wonders why people think hes a nit.


but to the OP, you should raise for information and to make people pay for suited connectors etc.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi, I like posting random preflop questions without regard to blinds, stacks, table texture, image, and table flow. Is my move better then this other standard move?

[/ QUOTE ]

No need for the condescendence.

I leave all that up to you.

The question I pose is precisely: *are there* any conditions--table, player, etc.--under which limping a hand like QQ under the gun can be correct?

Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

the terms 'texture' and 'table flow' always make me laugh

i feel like we're talking about a ship on sea or feeling a rug or something

'texture' is just so broad

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
the terms 'texture' and 'table flow' always make me laugh

i feel like we're talking about a ship on sea or feeling a rug or something

'texture' is just so broad

[/ QUOTE ]

it aint the size of the ship its the motion of the ocean

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
but to the OP, you should raise for information and to make people pay for suited connectors etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate?

I've covered these points and have my own reasons.

I believe that information is often more reliable when it's postflop in unraised pots, rather than preflop in raised pots (at least in the loose games I play in).

I also believe that I'm not really making suited connectors and the like "pay" when I'm charing them 4 or 5 bb's and we have 200 bb's or more in front of us.

No one has touched on this, but my biggest reason for doing what I do is position.

Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
The question I pose is precisely: *are there* any conditions--table, player, etc.--under which limping a hand like QQ under the gun can be correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

The question to this answer is obvious. The fact you are posting it here means you want vindication for getting ragged on at another forum.

Congratulations, this is the first "bad beat" post I've seen without you even playing a hand.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question I pose is precisely: *are there* any conditions--table, player, etc.--under which limping a hand like QQ under the gun can be correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

The question to this answer is obvious. The fact you are posting it here means you want vindication for getting ragged on at another forum.

Congratulations, this is the first "bad beat" post I've seen without you even playing a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. Not sure what you mean, and while I believe the "obvious" answer is that there might be certain conditions where limping is correct, a lot of players had a hard time believing this.

I'm not really talking about the obvious ones like there is a maniac on my left, or the big blind is a maniac, or the game is super loose/aggro and I plan on reraising every time.

So "obviously" there are certain conditions which this is correct, but can you help me out and think of some instead of flaming me?

Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
(cross-posted in SS 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

[/ QUOTE ]

An attempt to answer this question would summon tl;dr

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

I guess this thread is going nowhere. 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
 

[ QUOTE ]

I also believe that I'm not really making suited connectors and the like "pay" when I'm charing them 4 or 5 bb's and we have 200 bb's or more in front of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um there are far more important reasons for raising before the flop than making suited connectors "pay to crack you." But hey if you want to check/fold with QQ every time you don't hit a set please be my guest.

The Doc

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I also believe that I'm not really making suited connectors and the like "pay" when I'm charing them 4 or 5 bb's and we have 200 bb's or more in front of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um there are far more important reasons for raising before the flop than making suited connectors "pay to crack you." But hey if you want to check/fold with QQ every time you don't hit a set please be my guest.

The Doc

[/ QUOTE ]

I was responding to this post by MightyMouse:

[ QUOTE ]
but to the OP, you should raise for information and to make people pay for suited connectors etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

And by the way, I stated (I believe) that I'm not check/folding every time I don't hit a set.

Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

Your question was if there existed conditions that it could be correct. "Obviously" there are conditions to support just about any action in poker, so to answer your question yes conditions exist.

If you want specific examples, there are many conditions, including the ones you listed. In addition to those you thought of I would advocate limping almost regardless of conditions, for metagame purposes. For instance, say you always raise with QQ, then whenever you limp under the gun, observant opponents will know you don't have QQ. So, limping sometimes will be correct in order to not be too predictable.

JKratzer

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your question was if there existed conditions that it could be correct. "Obviously" there are conditions to support just about any action in poker, so to answer your question yes conditions exist.

If you want specific examples, there are many conditions, including the ones you listed. In addition to those you thought of I would advocate limping almost regardless of conditions, for metagame purposes. For instance, say you always raise with QQ, then whenever you limp under the gun, observant opponents will know you don't have QQ. So, limping sometimes will be correct in order to not be too predictable.

JKratzer

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the reply, JKratzer.

Yes, I also realize metagame reasons (mixing up your game, deception) is one big reason.

But beyond that, I'm wondering if it's sometimes higher EV to limp them *regularly* in some deep-stack games--perhaps the loose/aggro kind, or maybe loose/passive-retarded-postflop kind?

If it helps, I normally always select and play in loose/aggro games. If not that, then usually just loose/passive. Sometimes, I find myself on a tight/passive or tight/aggressive table like in a tournament.

On any of these tables, I tend to play very loosely in position and very tightly out of position. So, I brought up queens as an example. In a deep stack game, I just detest playing big pots out of position with vulnerable hands including AA-QQ.

I have a significant amount of experience playing LAG with deep (200+ bb) stacks, and from this experience I have gained a huge appreciation for position in big-bet poker.

So, I'm wondering if what I'm doing really has the highest EV. That is, can limping queens and playing them passively since I'm out of position be better than the standard/textbook raising them? If not, what table conditions make this okay?

etc.

Thanks,
Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

In case anyone is interested in following the small stakes no limit forum discussion:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=3569076

Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

Bump...

If someone could address my reasons posted above, or maybe check out the (livelier) discussion in the SS NL forum, that would be great.

And please, I'm not doing this for a pat on the back or something. I really want to effectively analyze if what I'm doing is optimal or suboptimal, and if the textbook way to play queens here is really the best.

Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

stop bumping this garbage

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

YSSCKY

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

In a full game, I limp a lot of the time if I play a hand UTG. I'll also limp-reraise with many hands. Obviously there are many conditions where limping can be fine w/ QQ early. In a shorter game, I like to raise a lot more UTG, hence I usually raise this one too.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
In a full game, I limp a lot of the time if I play a hand UTG. I'll also limp-reraise with many hands. Obviously there are many conditions where limping can be fine w/ QQ early. In a shorter game, I like to raise a lot more UTG, hence I usually raise this one too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, I am generally speaking of a full game, and do raise this under the gun in short (six or less) games since I'm more likely to have position, and besides, this is a game of blind stealing much more so than a ring game.

Just out of curiousity, do you limp AK here also? AA/KK with the intent to reraise (if the table is aggressive enough)? JJ/TT? If you limp any of those, how many of those do you plan to always reraise?

I limp all of those (I select tables/games that are aggressive enough to make limp/reraising AA/KK profitable), plan to always reraise AA/KK, sometimes reraise AK/QQ, and never reraise JJ/TT (shouldn't say "never", but almost never).

FWIW, I limp-reraise 99-22/air here once in a while to mix up my game.

Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

deep deep i don't limp

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I limp-reraise 99-22/air here once in a while to mix up my game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good stuff.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
deep deep i don't limp

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

So you're saying the opposite of me... in a short(er) stack game, you would tend to limp, but in a deep(er) stack game, you raise?

Aseem

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

this thread is making my eyes bleed.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

At least you can still see, my brother is just reading this thread to me and I'm typing blind. adlkfjadfkldjashfasujhklasdf;lkajsdf

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

Full ring I will often limp UTG if the table has a few weak short stacks hoping that one of them raise and I can isolate even if there are deep stacks at the table. If you limp and this pot goes muti-way it can be very tricky but I think the only situation that isn't terribly tough here is when you hit a set or take the blinds.

I also think the question you are asking is a little too general but regardless of stack sizes there would be game conditions where you could justify either play. If I had to guess I probably limp something like 1 in 5 hands with QQ UTG full-ring and almost never short-handed.

Also, I would like to say that I think a lot of the people responding to this thread need to look in the mirror. You guys spend more time bitching and complaining or posting some stupid [censored] then you probably realize. Search some of the names in this thread and you will see what I mean. No wonder you guys have so many posts.

If you think this guy is asking a stupid question don't respond. I am just getting tired of going through posts with lots of responses thinking it will be an interesting topic only find out 90% of them are by sarcastic assholes.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

There are so many good reasons to limp QQ UTG in a deep stacked game... what you want is to isolate headsup AJ, AT, JJ and worse. Now imagine if you limp also QJ, 87s etc; your limp here isn't scary. The deception that comes with the initial limp if the pot preflop builds up to something worthwhile (20-30 BB) is exactly what you want - I'm betting pot when it gets back to me. A short stacked (100BB ish) AK-AJ, JJ, TT is almost always going to push here and put you on TT or worse. If you raise UTG and shortstack pushes - I'm going to have to call unless you know shortstack's pushing range is AA-KK; generally it's far bigger (I see A9 suited; AJ suited pushing here all the time in a 2/5 nl game) and there's a reason why they are shortstacked. This way there is a bigger pot filled with dead money. If it goes multiway and a family pot occurs - see the flop with the 3rd best starting hand in hold'em. Check/bet/call/fold depending on the board - easy.

Now imagine you (standard TAG) raised UTG (7x BB for example) with a stack of 500BB. Someone with 700BB reraises. What now? Without a read this is a clear muck situation. 4/1 dog at worst, flip at best because you've already declared your hand as a premium and now someone that covers you is raising you. If you raise UTG and gets called by tricky deep stake (who would call with AA) - what now? What can you put him on? Rag board can be scary; broadway is scary, a 87, 67, 56, 98, any paired board is scary. You are out of position and you cannot proceed with any confidence and is liable to be outplayed postflop unless you hit your set. Call and hope to hit a set or muck.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]

Also, I would like to say that I think a lot of the people responding to this thread need to look in the mirror.

[/ QUOTE ]

done. bad hair day, not much else to say.

[ QUOTE ]

I am just getting tired of going through posts with lots of responses thinking it will be an interesting topic only find out 90% of them are by sarcastic assholes.

[/ QUOTE ]

this post is worthless.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are so many good reasons to limp QQ UTG in a deep stacked game... what you want is to isolate headsup AJ, AT, JJ and worse. Now imagine if you limp also QJ, 87s etc; your limp here isn't scary. The deception that comes with the initial limp if the pot preflop builds up to something worthwhile (20-30 BB) is exactly what you want - I'm betting pot when it gets back to me. A short stacked (100BB ish) AK-AJ, JJ, TT is almost always going to push here and put you on TT or worse. If you raise UTG and shortstack pushes - I'm going to have to call unless you know shortstack's pushing range is AA-KK; generally it's far bigger (I see A9 suited; AJ suited pushing here all the time in a 2/5 nl game) and there's a reason why they are shortstacked. This way there is a bigger pot filled with dead money. If it goes multiway and a family pot occurs - see the flop with the 3rd best starting hand in hold'em. Check/bet/call/fold depending on the board - easy.

Now imagine you (standard TAG) raised UTG (7x BB for example) with a stack of 500BB. Someone with 700BB reraises. What now? Without a read this is a clear muck situation. 4/1 dog at worst, flip at best because you've already declared your hand as a premium and now someone that covers you is raising you. If you raise UTG and gets called by tricky deep stake (who would call with AA) - what now? What can you put him on? Rag board can be scary; broadway is scary, a 87, 67, 56, 98, any paired board is scary. You are out of position and you cannot proceed with any confidence and is liable to be outplayed postflop unless you hit your set. Call and hope to hit a set or muck.

[/ QUOTE ]

if this is a joke it is pretty impressive

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are so many good reasons to limp QQ UTG in a deep stacked game... what you want is to isolate headsup AJ, AT, JJ and worse. Now imagine if you limp also QJ, 87s etc; your limp here isn't scary. The deception that comes with the initial limp if the pot preflop builds up to something worthwhile (20-30 BB) is exactly what you want - I'm betting pot when it gets back to me. A short stacked (100BB ish) AK-AJ, JJ, TT is almost always going to push here and put you on TT or worse. If you raise UTG and shortstack pushes - I'm going to have to call unless you know shortstack's pushing range is AA-KK; generally it's far bigger (I see A9 suited; AJ suited pushing here all the time in a 2/5 nl game) and there's a reason why they are shortstacked. This way there is a bigger pot filled with dead money. If it goes multiway and a family pot occurs - see the flop with the 3rd best starting hand in hold'em. Check/bet/call/fold depending on the board - easy.

Now imagine you (standard TAG) raised UTG (7x BB for example) with a stack of 500BB. Someone with 700BB reraises. What now? Without a read this is a clear muck situation. 4/1 dog at worst, flip at best because you've already declared your hand as a premium and now someone that covers you is raising you. If you raise UTG and gets called by tricky deep stake (who would call with AA) - what now? What can you put him on? Rag board can be scary; broadway is scary, a 87, 67, 56, 98, any paired board is scary. You are out of position and you cannot proceed with any confidence and is liable to be outplayed postflop unless you hit your set. Call and hope to hit a set or muck.

[/ QUOTE ]

if this is a joke it is pretty impressive

[/ QUOTE ]

A 200 nl game. You have 2.2k - 10x the buy-in. A uber tricky TAG's stack just covers yours. Everyone else you cover by 3 or 4x and can positively outplay postflop given position, stack size and solid reads.

Do you want to tango with deep stack here UTG with QQ if he reraises? I know my answer.

It's reasonably advanced theory for a specific situation and specific type of game - deep stake nl when you're a deep stake; in a soft game or if you have a shallow stack, go ahead and raise it to whatever you feel like.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]

It's reasonably advanced theory for a specific situation and specific type of game - deep stake nl when you're a deep stake

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. do you give private lessons sir? also will you deep stake me, my br's getting kind of low after all these 2 outers...

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
(cross-posted in SS 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

[/ QUOTE ]

In cash games (and early in tourneys), I open limp in early position with virtually every hand I decide to play.

If I get raised, then I make a decision whether to call, raise or fold. With any medium pair (QQ-88), I will call that raise if I have the implied odds to flop a set.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

...

Dogs are good and the ox is slower but the earth is indeed patient.

Did I make sense there or just make a smartarse non sequiter that I'm sure, enriched everybody's lives?

Feel free to share with the forum the blindingly obvious theory that means you should raise UTG with QQ that is far more +EV than occassionally stacking JJ, AJ, AT, TT (or worse).

I'm by no means claiming that what I believe is "correct" poker, but I would love to hear a proper counter-argument than "QQ = big hand; big hand = raise regardless of position".

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

um there's something to be said for the fact that raising utg with qq does not require you to lose 500bb's ifyou flop an overpair to someone else's set outof position. also your statement about it being advanced theory that deep stack poker plays differently than small stacked poker is ludicrous. some people in this forum have played poker once or twice, so you may want to tone down the pedantic crap, especially when you make generalizations that often do not apply.

Re: Limping QQ under the gun
 

[ QUOTE ]
...

Dogs are good and the ox is slower but the earth is indeed patient.

Did I make sense there or just make a smartarse non sequiter that I'm sure, enriched everybody's lives?

Feel free to share with the forum the blindingly obvious theory that means you should raise UTG with QQ that is far more +EV than occassionally stacking JJ, AJ, AT, TT (or worse).

I'm by no means claiming that what I believe is "correct" poker, but I would love to hear a proper counter-argument than "QQ = big hand; big hand = raise regardless of position".

[/ QUOTE ]

QQ=pair=raise regardless of position