not him too...

[34TheTruth34]

from Barry Tannenbaum's latest Card Player article:

[ QUOTE ]
In a recent session of a $30-$60 hold'em game, I held pocket queens in the big blind. After three players called the blind and the small blind just called, I checked. This play gave me an easy laydown if an ace or king flopped, and provided me a lot of strategic scope (as well as some deception) if I flopped a set or an overpair.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the best limit hold 'em poker players in the world, right?

What do you guys think about this?

[potato]

I hope he's so good that he can get 2 more BBs out of his "deception" after the flop.

[1800GAMBLER]

Just because you raise out of the blinds with QQ you aren't given 2BBs right away.

Barry meantioning deception is stupid too. If he raises out of the blind it doesn't give that much information away at all, it's not going to change the play of many players hands because of the other hands he'll raise out of the blinds. Yet not raising here gives away a huge amount of information when you do raise out the blinds.

Checking here is awful.

[34TheTruth34]

I agree 100%.

The amazing thing to me is that you have three limpers and the SB completing. This is a 30/60 game, so presumably the players are pretty aggressive and don't need much to raise. This means, at least to me, that two queens are even stronger than normal (i.e., have more of an overlay) because nobody else raised preflop. Seems like a hell of a lot to be giving up for the purpose of deceiving your opponents.

[Bob S.]

I highly doubt that this is a default play for Barry, in fact I'm sure it's not. Why do people get so crazy when someone attempts to take a different approach to a hand? Does everyone here think there is absolutely no value to just checking big hands in the blinds once in a while? Yes you are giving up some equity preflop but when a flop comes favorable sometimes all the EV lost preflop can be gained and then some postflop. On the other hand, I'm not so sure I'd be willing to give up QQ if an overcard hit the flop in that game either, like one poster already stated, the absence of a preflop raise shows no one is too strong. That being the case, should a flop of T72 or something come, I think Barry stands to get a lot of action from top and middle pair type hands that aren't suspecting QQ.

Bob S.

[elysium]

hi truth

you've got to raise truth. the QQ is a must raise here for too many reasons. i just can't understand advising that it be checked. it is absolutely the lesser ev play to check rather than raise in this spot.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems like a hell of a lot to be giving up for the purpose of deceiving your opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with raising QQ. But note that when better players have made the argument for flat calling, the rationale has not been just deception. They've primarily argued that keeping the pot smaller induces your opponents to make bigger mistakes on later streets.

So is what you lose in preflop equity by not raising matched by what you gain by having your opponets be wrong rather than correct to chase? I don't think so. But it might closer than one might immediately imagine.

[MikeGuz]

I read this article this morning and thought the same thing. A must admit it looks like a raise to me too but mixing it up has advantages later in the game.

I just hate to be predictable.

[potato]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because you raise out of the blinds with QQ you aren't given 2BBs right away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't you? 99.9% of the time, everyone will call, and 99.9% of the time you have the best hand.

So they're at least giving you 2 BB mathemamatically.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

Eww...

I'll let others elaborate.