Limping QQ under the gun

[akishore]

(cross-posted in MHS NL)

Hi,

I am a member of another poker forum, and I posted a very controversial hand on there that generated a bunch of heated debate.

I claimed that in a deep stack no limit game, it is standard for me to limp a hand as big as QQ under the gun.

Before I divulge into reasons, I just want to hear some thoughts here. Can this be right? Or is it always wrong? etc.

Thanks,
Aseem

[PoBoy321]

It's all table dependent and the specifics of the hand matter a great deal.

[Bco1/75]

Depends on what type of table you are at. Agressive table, sometimes with KK or AA hoping for a raise in a later position. I think it is asking for trouble with QQ or less.

So what is your play when you limp with QQ and there is 4 other limpers and the flop is Axx? You asking for A7 to take your money.

[akishore]

[ QUOTE ]
It's all table dependent and the specifics of the hand matter a great deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi PoBoy,

This is part of my original question.

If this can be correct, under what conditions can you think of where this can be correct?

Aseem

[akishore]

[ QUOTE ]
Depends on what type of table you are at. Agressive table, sometimes with KK or AA hoping for a raise in a later position. I think it is asking for trouble with QQ or less.

So what is your play when you limp with QQ and there is 4 other limpers and the flop is Axx? You asking for A7 to take your money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Bco,

I never said that I limped with the intent to reraise. I do that with AA/KK, but not *necessarily* with QQ. I don't mind seeing an unraised flop with QQ here. Sometimes, I will limp-reraise QQ here depending on the quality of the raiser, his stack, my ability to isolate him, etc.

As for the four-way unraised Axx flop, yes I realize that happens sometime, but why is this terrible? I can check/fold pretty easily.

Aseem

[orange]

So what your mainly saying is that you play QQ for set value, and basically no different than 77,99, etc. right?

[akishore]

[ QUOTE ]
So what your mainly saying is that you play QQ for set value, and basically no different than 77,99, etc. right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question.

Although it seems like that, the answer is no.

Mostly, it's just that I have a huge appreciation for position, moreso in deep stack poker. I hate playing big pots with vulnerable hands out of position.

I would much rather play a small pot here and check/fold "bad" flops and play the "good" ones. The good ones obviously include a set, but they can also include ragged flops (with or without an overcard), etc.

So no, not just for set value.

Aseem

[orange]

The problem with playing QQ for no raise is essentially the same problem AK has- any 1 pair hand has little chance of winning in large, multi-way pots.

Take in account the discussion over AK in a recent thread. The amount of hands your opponents can hold are easily disguised, and you will often be in the dark upon their holdings (being OOP with a hand that improves 1-5 by the river). How do you like any Ace, any King, or basically ATC having a good chance of outdrawing you?

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?

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

[erc007]

In poker, there are never any absolutes. That said, limping QQ might be correct, or not so incorrect about 20% of the time. I won't go into the table conditions that might make this play +EV, but I will list (just a few) reasons why this move is definitely -EV 80% of the time.
(1) The odds that an Ace or a King will flop are 1.3 to 1, in other words it will happen 43% of the time.
(2)High pocket pairs (including AA and KK) play much better against one or two opponents. Please look at some of the numbers when you get the chance, you will see that the winning percentages for high pocket pairs decrease rapidly, as the field goes from 2 to 4-5 players.
(3)Assuming that you have some reads on your opponents, raising will help you define their hands.

These are just some basic facts and stats, and as I mentioned, mixing your play is always a good idea. I just feel that "checking and folding" QQ is just giving up too much value.

[akishore]

[ QUOTE ]
(1) The odds that an Ace or a King will flop are 1.3 to 1, in other words it will happen 43% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see the significane of this.

These numbers don't change whether I raise or limp.


[ QUOTE ]
(2)High pocket pairs (including AA and KK) play much better against one or two opponents. Please look at some of the numbers when you get the chance, you will see that the winning percentages for high pocket pairs decrease rapidly, as the field goes from 2 to 4-5 players.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't really care much about winning percentages; I care about winning money.


[ QUOTE ]
3)Assuming that you have some reads on your opponents, raising will help you define their hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a grey area, but I believe that my opponents' hands tend to be better defined with a bet on the flop in a small, unraised pot, than they do with a continuation bet on a flop in a big, raised pot.

If the reasons aren't clear, I'll elaborate.


[ QUOTE ]
I just feel that "checking and folding" QQ is just giving up too much value.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not doing that the 7 out of 8 times I don't flop a set, so I'm not just check/folding every non-Q flop.


Aseem