Level 2 KQs, flopped top pair (Party $11)

[tigerite]

What's the point? Keep raising the marginal hands from the button if you want. I just don't think it is worth it with deep stacks and a limper in the hand.

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Limping late with KQ is how I'd play it too with a UTG limper. I'd raise with AK, AQ and 99+.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your rationale for limping with KQ but raising with AQ? I think against low buyin opponents they're going to play very similarly unless you're looking for high card value when you completely whiff.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can make TPBK with AQ and you can't with KQ. If you spike your top pair with AQ on the flop, there can't be an overpair. With KQ, you can hit a pair of K's on an A-high board and get beat by Ax.

However, the blinds bother me. With KQ against 1 UTG limper, do you really want both blinds coming along most of the time making 4 to the flop rather than trying to cut it down to heads up?

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
Alright, "when a Q falls", let's be pedantic shall we.. or for that matter "when a flush comes of my suit"

[/ QUOTE ]

When a queen falls you can easily make second best hand. Flopped 2 pair, set, on and on. I'm not being pedantic -- you're statement is so wrong I think it is a foolish thing to say.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

You can make TPBK with AQ and you can't with KQ. If you spike your top pair with AQ on the flop, there can't be an overpair.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that if you're playing against highly fishy opponents who will pay off with TPNK and second pair type hands (as many in the 11s will), these concerns represent a pretty small fraction of all possible outcomes. While KQ is clearly inferior to AQ, it's still going to be very good compared to what you're up against with weak, loose opposition. If you're playing a very tight player who won't pay you off with worse top pair hands, then KQ is much worse than AQ. It's very situational.

[ QUOTE ]
With KQ, you can hit a pair of K's on an A-high board and get beat by Ax.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point, but I think most of us won't have too hard a time getting away from KQ on an AKx board if it's necessary.

[morgan180]

its a good point - and i agree - they do play similar and i give more value to KQs late in a SNG. At blinds of 75/150 and up i'll raise agressively with KQs on the button - its the blind levels that makes me limp here i'm hoping for 4 people and a flush - plus some high card strength. however when there is extreme heat put on the top pair due to a flush/set/AK possibility (albeit small with AK i don't think anyone in 11s is limping AK EP) then i am going to walk away from it, unless i have a read that the guy is a total donk who i've seen in there with KJ going to the felt.

I have to add another couple of hands to the SBs range - including QJs/QJo which could also show up here - with QJs he has 15 outs to win here and is reasonable to complete/min bet/rr all-in. ALthough the other hands mentioned earlier in the post are all just as valid.

[morgan180]

[ QUOTE ]
It's very situational

[/ QUOTE ]

[AliasMrJones]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a good point, but I think most of us won't have too hard a time getting away from KQ on an AKx board if it's necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but in addition, when you hit top pair of A's with AQ no overpair can come to your pair. When you hit top pair of K's with KQ an A on the turn or river can beat you. All these little things aren't a big deal individually, but together they add up to AQ being much stronger than KQ.

KQ is a good hand, but clearly KQ < AQ < AK. There is a section in Small Stakes Hold 'Em where Ed Miller talks about the strengths and weaknesses of every type of starting hand. The book is about limit ring games, but the discussion is generic enough, dealing with the various qualities of different families of starting hands (high card strength, str8/flush strength, want/not want multi-way, etc.) and what specifically makes some hands stronger than some other similar hands that I think it is worth a read even if you don't play limit ring games. The counting outs section is also very good and applicable to any poker game.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

When you hit top pair of K's with KQ an A on the turn or river can beat you.

[/ QUOTE ]

An opponent calling you down with A high no pair when you're leading with KQ on a Kxx board has three outs. An opponent calling you down with 72 when you're leading with AK on an Ax7 board has five outs. There are tons of ways to get beat other than losing to a higher pair. Yes, you're vulnerable, but you're almost always vulnerable.

[tigerite]

Ok, I just don't think it's worth raising at this early stage, that is what I meant, yes it's fine to raise when the blinds and limps will make a big difference to your stack; even push. I just don't see the need here. Seems counterintuitive.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Limping late with KQ is how I'd play it too with a UTG limper. I'd raise with AK, AQ and 99+.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't raise with 99-JJ (talking pre-flop here) in this situation. How much are you raising? What are you doing on the flop if checked to or if UTG leads? What if one or both of the blinds call?

Raising with these hands seems like a bad idea to me. You need to raise enough to clear out the blinds because you don't want to play medium pocket pairs multiway. If you are successful isolating UTG, then you are more often than not facing at least one overcard on the flop.

This seems like a situation where you're setting yourself up for a small win or a big loss, which I would prefer not to do in level 2.