JJ Hand

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
Whoops, one thing I didn't realize is that this was 6-max. In that case, raising JJ UTG is fine, but I still don't like it at a full table.

[/ QUOTE ]
ok we're going to have to disagree on this one [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, doesn't Harrington's book deal with tourney play? I don't see how you can possibly compare a tournament situation with what's going on here.

[/ QUOTE ]
the early stages of tournaments are almost identical to ring games.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
the early stages of tournaments are almost identical to ring games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, but whatever.

[wtfsvi]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar på:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar på:</font><hr />
Whoops, one thing I didn't realize is that this was 6-max. In that case, raising JJ UTG is fine, but I still don't like it at a full table.

[/ QUOTE ]
ok we're going to have to disagree on this one [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ] Poboy is right. It must be in your "playbook". Oponent dependent, but limp should be the standard at full tables imo.


</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar på:</font><hr />

the early stages of tournaments are almost identical to ring games.

[/ QUOTE ] No.

[imported_anacardo]

You peoples' raising standards are incomprehensible to me. What DO you guys raise under the gun? If you don't raise jacks, then everything you play in the first three positions should probably be limped or limp-reraised.

For the record, my EP raising standards are something like:

AA-99, AK-AQ, with the occasional AJs-ATs or QJs-87s if I feel like my raises are getting too much respect. But I would never hesitate to raise jacks here except on the toughest &amp; tightest of tables. They're a premium hand, and one of my biggest money-makers.

[wtfsvi]

Raising ATs and QJs UTG at a full table does not sound right. I would much rather be folding them.

Few small stakes players pay attention at all to weather you raise. Very few of those that do, pay attention to what positions you raise in. Just let the ones that do pay attention have the information. Raising AT UTG will cost you much more in the long run.

When you move up in stakes and start playing with people that do pay attention, never open-raising UTG would be one possibility and opening up your raising range would be another. That's not where this guy was playing.

For the record, open raising with JJ is fine at a lot of tables, but the big pots in full ring are won when you spike the J, with the JJ overpair. That's why you limp.

EDIT: By the way, you're raising ranges for UTG don't sound half bad for LP.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
Poboy is right. It must be in your "playbook". Oponent dependent, but limp should be the standard at full tables imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
i don't understand why everyone wants to encourage multiway action with this hand. JJ is a premium hand. do you just play it for set value?

if you don't raise stuff like JJ, won't opponents be able to put you a very narrow range of hands when you raise utg?

anyway, preflop is the least interesting street in the posted hand. let's talk about the play after the flop.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the early stages of tournaments are almost identical to ring games.

[/ QUOTE ] No.

[/ QUOTE ]
ok well argued.

if chip ev and dollar ev are almost the same at the start of tournaments -- and this has been discussed ad nauseum in the multitable and single-table tournament forums -- then how are the early stages of tournaments materially different from ring games?

[imported_anacardo]

You make the majority of your money with ALL your pairs by spiking a set, with the possible exception of AA. What about all those smaller pots where you correctly raise for value / field limitation and take it down on the flop or turn? These are a lot more common.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, open raising with JJ is fine at a lot of tables, but the big pots in full ring are won when you spike the J, with the JJ overpair. That's why you limp.

[/ QUOTE ]
it doesn't matter if you win one big pot vs. lots of small pots. you're trying to maximize your $/hand.

[imported_anacardo]

I would probably bet the flop for 2/3 pot here. If I get called I'm inclined to surrender the hand, especially with that turn card.

Turn action looks good; what's with Villain's underbets?

If you're going to bet this river it should be for value, not as a bluff. Villain would have to be either very tight-weak or have rather poor hand-reading skills for you to have any chance of successfully representing a full house. Why wouldn't you have bet your queens up on the flop? The only reasonable hand with showdown value that you beat is TT. This would be an easy call for any flush, trips, or queens/higher up. Unless I knew Villain would call with nearly any pocket pair here, I would just bet $10 or so as a blocking bet.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to bet this river it should be for value, not as a bluff. Villain would have to be either very tight-weak or have rather poor hand-reading skills for you to have any chance of successfully representing a full house. Why wouldn't you have bet your queens up on the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]
let's pretend i have AQ. this is exactly how i would have played the hand!

did you notice that he 3 bet me preflop? i am either way ahead or way behind. what cards am i afraid of? about the only hand that has a decent draw against me that villain would be 3 bet is A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. every other hand has 2 or 3 outs -- or i am crushed by an overpair. so i walk the dog and check/call, check/call his underbets, then bet when i make my "boat."

betting the flop here with a Q is the line that loses the most when i'm behind, but wins the least when i'm ahead.

i'd argue that the line i took very much represents a Q to an observant, thinking opponent. i don't know if this opponent qualifies, though, judging from his strange underbets.