Widening our hand selection

[Randy Burgess]

As I explain elsewhere (in the subthread where Joe Tall dirtied himself again) I don't like a QT limp here. The game is six or seven players, and you're going to start limping passively on the button with inferior hands? How is this a good idea? If you were playing a 6-max game online, would you limp QT on the button after 2 limpers? Would you expect to win over time with this approach?

I'd rather reserve chips for better hands with which I can attack then toss them out with an inferior hand just because I have "position." And if that didn't work against this particular crew I'd spend some more time thinking about a strategy that would work. But QT offsuit? Naw.

[Joe Tall]

I don't like the limp because the quality of hand is crappy and he's up against calling stations in a short-handed game (I believe it was 6 players by the time he limped that hand). I'd rather he reserve chips for a more aggressive attack with better cards.

Randy, answer me this, what is the 'quality' of these hands his loose opponents are limping in EP with? He's very likely ahead most of those holdings, is he not? If they are limping w/J7s and 76o, and K2o, etc he likely has 20% pot equity. Given his skill level and his POSITION he should be limping w/JTo, I'd even limp w/Q9o and all sorts of hands on the BUTTON.

If you disagree, Joe, why don't you take a dose of mouthwash and explain yourself in detail? If all we get to hear is the sound of you vomiting, it doesn't mean very much.

I put it up there so you'd bump the thread (this is how we have to do it now-a-days) and hopefully one of the less experienced ones could explain it to you, help you out. I see Brad hit it up (but he knows this $hit already), I'm disapointed that others let it slip.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[Randy Burgess]

Sorry, Joe, it's not as cut-and-dry as you say. From what I observed, position in this game mattered much, much less than you suppose (in general, I've observed now that limit players overrate the importance of position in their game). You can quote me all the pot equity figures you like---you aren't demonstrating a winning strategy for this particular game with its particular texture.

You act as if there is a secret poker codebook, with all this stuff written down in absolute, no-argument-allowed terms; and that anyone who strays from these rigid lines is too obvious a fool to deal with in civil tones. But there is no such codebook, and no such universal agreemen. Even if there were, the requirement for civility in public discourse would still apply.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

sorry randy, joe is absolutely right.

QTo is such an easy limp here on the button in this described game that i'd even be tempted to raise.

and i would limp much worse hands here too.

[Randy Burgess]

Go to PokerRoom.com and look up QT offsuit as dealer with 6 players - you'll find it's negative EV at $3/$6. For 7 players, it's barely positive EV. For $5/$10, it's barely positive for 6 players; at the higher limits it dips negative again.

This is what I'm talking about.

You may object that this database includes hands played badly, not just hands played well. But it's a starting point. If we have some 6 max players who are using PokerTracker, maybe they've got some results for QT that they can post here.

At least numbers like these are a bare minimum start towards actual information, not just posturing and supposition. I enjoy the former and not the latter, and would presume any intelligent being to feel the same.

[Randy Burgess]

I would like it better if you would raise, quite frankly. In fact if Carl had raised that hand I wouldn't have objected. Because that's part of a strategy geared towards exploiting the other players. It might even be that QT off would be negative EV when you raise--but if it fits into an overall short-handed attack, it can still be good. I have a huge amount of short-handed experience compared to your average ring player, and in my book, limping as dealer is only occasionally part of the package.


Also, see my latest post with numbers for QT from PokerRoom.com. I think those numbers are skewed to the overly negative, because they must surely include misplayed hands from bad players, but they're a start. I'd like to see a good 6-max player with a big PokerTracker database weigh in--maybe even someone like David Ross. I'd trust his judgement better than mine, and certainly better than unsupported assertions.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

you're absolutely right in that the data provided in PokerRoom.com contains hands from all players, that includes world class players to 2+2ers to a whole ocean full of fish.

the vast majority of poker players would absolutely lose with this hand because, well, they suck.

but we at 2+2 are special. we're educated and smart, and winning players. and this is a hand we can win with.

EDIT TO ADD: but sorry randy, i don't have those PT stats with me now, but last time i checked QTo in LP is a winner for me and i play a ton of short handed. (although i don't always play it when i get the chance to, mainly due to player or table contitions not because i lose faith in the value of the hand in position)

[Randy Burgess]

When you get a chance, can you check your QT data to see if you've played it 6-way or less and what the results are from all positions? Probably a pretty small sample, but it would be interesting. Thanks.

[MRBAA]

The reason I posted this was to contemplate how much value you get from coming in with weak hands against players who won't make you pay either pre or post flop, but will pay you when you hit. That's why I wouldn't raise preflop with marginal hands. Granted, Q3s utg is not a winning spot. But you can really broaden out hands against loose passive players both because they play even worse hands and because they'll pay you off when you hit and either give you free cards when you get a little piece or make it obvious when they hit, so you can escape.

For example, when I hit top pair crap kicker in the Q3 hand, I was able to get paid off by hands that were buried without much risk of getting played back at.

[sthief09]

the numbers you're using represent a typical (bad) 3/6 or 5/10 or whatever player. also consider that the level of play you were against was probably the same as online .5/1. against these clowns, you could turn a profit with anything reasonable