Limping QQ under the gun

[whittiphil]

If you're comfortable check/folding QQ I guess it's ok... but I think a 5bb raise from early position will win you more money in the long run than a check/fold attitude.

[akishore]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you like any Ace, any King, or basically ATC having a good chance of outdrawing you?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't mind, precisely because I have much less interest in this smaller pot, since I'm out of position.

Again, it's not really about winning the hand or the pot; it's about winning money, right?

Since I play queens differently *postflop* by limping them preflop, it stands that I believe I make more money in this way than I do by raising preflop and playing them "standard" postflop.

In other words, I don't mind if any two cards outdraw me. I would mind much more so if I had raised preflop.

Just to reemphasize, this is precisely for deep stacks that I'm talking about. If I have 50 bb or 60 bb in front of me, I am clearly raising preflop.


[ QUOTE ]
So do you play very passively with the hand postflop? I can only see that happening, as you say you don't like being OOP in a larg(er) pot. To me, defining my hand means more to me than pot control/position. Do you raise with AK in this spot?

[/ QUOTE ]
I tend to play passively on most hands postflop when I'm out of position. This might be a pot limit omaha symptom, but I tend to respect position to a huge extent when it comes to big-bet poker. I don't mind letting my opponent retain the lead; this minimizes and possibly even negates his positional advantage in some cases.

To answer your question, yes I limp AK here too. I limp AA and KK here too, but for a different reason--just to be able to reraise. If no one raises behind me and it's a limped flop, it's not a disaster; I just play the hand differently. That doesn't mean I check/fold when I don't hit a set, but obviously I keep in my mind that the dynamics of the hand are much different.

My point is just that I am extremely tight out of position, both in the hands I play and the hands I raise (which is usually 0%, with the exception of those for deceptive purposes).


[ QUOTE ]
Edit: the topic title AKo in NL? by DWwarrior sort've reminds me of this.

[/ QUOTE ]
I will look at it. Thanks!


Aseem

[theben]

you can do it. you can do whatever you want to and be creative

[erc007]

LOL...I'm not surprised that you don't get the significance of my 1st point. I'm only going to explain this point, and leave you to learn the others the hard way.
It's true that the numbers (43% of the time an A or K will flop) when you have QQ don't change. The point that you are missing here is that you have the power to change the number of players that will play hands that contain an A or a K. By raising pre-flop, you can significantly reduce the likelihood that your opponents will have an A or a K. Most good players won't call a raise from EP with Axs or KJ. I'm not going to go into the numbers to illustate this point any further, but I hope that you (the guy who is intersted in "winning money") can see that by eliminating even one potential player with Axs or KJ or KT, you have increased the expectation of this hand. There is still a 43% chance that an A or a K will flop, but the odds that an opponent is holding (one of these cards) now makes this outcome far less "significant."
FYI...Players interested in "winning money" like this hand...and will play it correctly (not passively)... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[akishore]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL...I'm not surprised that you don't get the significance of my 1st point.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I did, but I was setting up my next point.


[ QUOTE ]
By raising pre-flop, you can significantly reduce the likelihood that your opponents will have an A or a K. Most good players won't call a raise from EP with Axs or KJ. I'm not going to go into the numbers to illustate this point any further, but I hope that you (the guy who is intersted in "winning money") can see that by eliminating even one potential player with Axs or KJ or KT, you have increased the expectation of this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
The thing is, you haven't shown me that this increases my *expectation*; you have only shown me that it increases my *winning chances*, or the likelihood that my hand is best at showdown.

Again, this doesn't tell me that this wins me the most money.


Aseem

[amoeba]

limping QQ utg in full ring is fine. often times if you are equal or not as good as the people behind you postflop, its not such a bad idea.

having a raised pot thats called say 5 way, where you have to almost autobet any flop where you have an overpair sucks.

do what makes sense to you.

Theres nothing crazy or controversial about limping QQ.

[TheWorstPlayer]

Obviously it can be right. If people don't see how it can be right, they fundamentally do not understand poker. Especially deep stack poker.

[whittiphil]

well... I want you to explain it to me TWP, because maybe I don't get it.

The *only* reason I think you should limp is for reraise preflop value, or set value. Is there another reason?

[akishore]

[ QUOTE ]
limping QQ utg in full ring is fine. often times if you are equal or not as good as the people behind you postflop, its not such a bad idea.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hi amoeba,

The thing is, I believe I play better postflop than the whole table, or close to it. I am not limping it for that reason.

It is mostly because I feel most of my profit comes from hands where I'm in position, so I tend to play squeaky tight out of position. I also tend to play passively out of position to exploit most of my opponents' overaggressive auto-betting tendencies and the like.

In other words, I feel that my postflop edge is *bigger* when I limp preflop.


[ QUOTE ]
having a raised pot thats called say 5 way, where you have to almost autobet any flop where you have an overpair sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is part of the reason.

You could make the argument that I don't *have* to autobet any flop, but then it's not much different from playing it like I do. You just miss out on perhaps a few bb's at most of equity. I'm sure those will be more than made up for by the deception you get on a big pot-sized turn/river bet when you hit a favorable flop.


[ QUOTE ]
do what makes sense to you.

Theres nothing crazy or controversial about limping QQ.

[/ QUOTE ]
While I appreciate this statement, I do not pretend that I am perfect at this game. I bring this up solely to analyze it and evaluate whether what I am doing actually does have the highest EV.


Thanks for the reply,
Aseem

[akishore]

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