Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Limit Texas Hold'em > Small Stakes Shorthanded
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-26-2005, 03:43 PM
JoshuaD JoshuaD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: NJ, USA
Posts: 341
Default Q9s in SB - Reads question.

I'm in SB at a 6 handed 5/10 6m table. I just sat about an orbit ago.

It's folded to the button who's got LPP stats after about 100 hands. I don't know the guy though, just mined stuff. I haven't seen him do anything at this table.

He raises, I've got Q9s in the SB. What's my move and why?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-26-2005, 03:48 PM
spydog spydog is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 7
Default Re: Q9s in SB - Reads question.

Fold because he's got you crushed most of the time.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-26-2005, 03:49 PM
DMBFan23 DMBFan23 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: I don\'t want a large Farva
Posts: 417
Default Re: Q9s in SB - Reads question.

fold because your hand sucks?

really though, OOP, against a raise, and the small 5/10 blind structure making otherwise marginal calls slightly -EV pushes it to a fold for me.

and if we're three betting then I really don't like it cause now we're up against a loose player out of position with (a weak) Q high.

also we can't ignore the times BB will get involved.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-26-2005, 03:49 PM
Rubeskies Rubeskies is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1
Default Re: Q9s in SB - Reads question.

Fold because you are OOP with almost no showdown value against a guy who probably likes to call down.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-26-2005, 03:50 PM
JoshuaD JoshuaD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: NJ, USA
Posts: 341
Default Re: Q9s in SB - Reads question.

[ QUOTE ]
fold because your hand sucks?

really though, OOP, against a raise, and the small 5/10 blind structure making otherwise marginal calls slightly -EV pushes it to a fold for me.

and if we're three betting then I really don't like it cause now we're up against a loose player out of position with (a weak) Q high.

also we can't ignore the times BB will get involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. For some reason I had to do a double take here.

What's the worst you guys are 3-betting?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-26-2005, 03:56 PM
DMBFan23 DMBFan23 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: I don\'t want a large Farva
Posts: 417
Default Re: Q9s in SB - Reads question.

I think I'm too tight in the SB, but I think 77, ATo, A9s, KJs, and KQo are probably the lowest I'd go against this dude. depends on exactly how 'LP' he is preflop, I suppose.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-26-2005, 04:01 PM
7ontheline 7ontheline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: My dog will eat MicroBob\'s cat.
Posts: 339
Default Re: Q9s in SB - Reads question.

Depends on your read. SInce you don't have one. . .

Against an unknown, maybe A5s+, A7o+, KT+, QJ+, and maybe all the way down to 22+ although probably more like 44 or 55+. I'm an idiot though, don't listen to me. I probably tighten up these standards against this guy - LPPs in position suck to play against. They never fold, so you have to hit and you can't get a whole lot of value out of them because they won't raise you.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-26-2005, 05:28 PM
obsidian obsidian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: IL
Posts: 343
Default Re: Q9s in SB - Reads question.

What do you do here against a more aggressive opponent? Say someone who is 40/20 with an atsb of 35-40%. I've been calling more against this opponent.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.