Re: 50NL: I 4bet QQ against TAG
 

I like the 4 bet. He has only played 50 hands at this table and havent 3 betted you before. That doesnt matter much. 50 hands is to few to make it all work out so you raise EP and he 3-bet you in LP.

Clear fold to the shove in my eyes. I doubt any good player use this line with AK this deep.

Re: 50NL: I 4bet QQ against TAG
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if I 4-bet QQ, I'm not folding it. Even if he has KK+,AK you have equity to call

[/ QUOTE ]

With 100bb stacks I would call after 4 betting. Here the stacks were slightly deeper. I still had $50 left after 4 betting. Is it still a call?

[/ QUOTE ]

I double checked and I guess you're getting dealt bad odds, so a fold is fine. I think 4-betting/folding QQ is a bad practice in general though.

Re: 50NL: I 4bet QQ against TAG
 

I don't like the 4-bet simply because he has not 3-bet you yet. Which means he was waiting for a good spot. I think his 4bet raise was AQs+ and JJ+, once he shoves it tightens to QQ+ and AK

his shove gives you 51:73, I think (just pulling this out of my ass) that you can call his shove here as you have close to 35% equity.

Re: 50NL: I 4bet QQ against TAG
 

You have to 4bet. When you 4bet and he folds, you're happy with the pot. When you 4 bet and he shoves, he mostly has KK AA AK. Even against AK you're just marginal favorite and against the other two you're a giant underdog so you can easily fold.
When you simply call the 3 bet and flop comes j high, you go broke against AA and KK (which could have been avoided by the preflop 4bet). When you call the 3bet and flop comes A or K high, you have no idea where you stand.

Re: 50NL: I 4bet QQ against TAG
 

I can do the same with 93o and get the exact same results.

Re: 50NL: I 4bet QQ against TAG
 

I think it's too soon to try to mix it up with this guy. Only 50 hands? I'm pretty sure he's playing standard against you, and the same should go for you. Without a history, I just call. When he shoves, I believe you have to fold.

Re: 50NL: I 4bet QQ against TAG
 

Man hell yeah, i love the 4-bet like a fat kid likes fatty fat fat stuff.

I was just gonna make a post about how i feel the 4-bet has gone outta style at the tables, everyone 4-bets all-in, but nobody 4-BETs, you know what i mean?

i was gonna pose the question - when are we 4-betting but not all in?

I think the 4-bet is solid gold.

But - What if i always 4-bet all in with JJ+

Think about Shania with this one too - My first 4-bet all in is with QQ say. Sheer luck its against a nit with J10s.
(That last statement is integral i think to our answer)

Next time I 4 bet all-in, I'm going to save it for my premium hands, AA, KK, AKs.

Now my 4-bet all in represent a wider range than just KK+ say.

What if i did it with JJ the first time? Is JJ too big a risk to 4-bet all in? I think Jacks are underestimated as a pocket pair personally, I go nuts with Jacks because Jacks are the nuts at these limits. I think people are overestimating their unmade connectors at this limit moreso than playing their pocket pairs hard. Does this include the TAGs? I'd have to go over my PT database, but recently I busted heads with my 99 against a TAG who 4-bet me all-in with AKo (i had a better read on the situation than it seems with only that last situation along with other metagame b.s. etcs)

Maybe at NL50 this is pointless to worry about. Against a TAG, would we be able to pull this off?

I think i still stand by the 4-bet vs the 4-bet all-in, but I would want to hear other people's thoughts on proper PF conditions that would warrant the 4-bet VS the 4-bet all in.

I hate to conclude with this, but it I think its 100% true: if you don't have a read on your opponent, that 4-bet is better than a 4-bet all in, you're saving some money. And by read, i mean more than just x/x/x numbers. I would want to see some showdown data on the mf'er.

seacrest out.