Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

Full ring typical live loose game.

A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] UGT + 1. I limp 4 or so callers Button or one of the blinds raise (common occurrence) . No tight players so I have no reason to fear it outright. I know if I call all the others will call as well.

Simple question.. call or fold.

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

you answered your own question. call

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

Please call now, operators are standing by...


AB

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

I know in this situation with say QJ os I should be folding.. thoughts?

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

Er... so you limped, some people called, and a guy raised and you're wondering if you should fold? Even if you limped 72o for some reason, do not fold for 1 more bet. Ever.

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

Don't get into this situation with QJo.

Once you have limped, never fold for one bet back to you, unless the guy who had a gun to your head when you limped is now out of bullets.

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

I dont limp in that early with A9s, especially if it is common for there to be a raise behind me.

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

I see youre all talking to me like Im a bit of a halfwit but Im just trying to tighten up the foundation holes in my game.. and Im getting the message here.. The reason I was asking is in SSHE (which Im basing the bulk of my limit play on currently) made mention to limping certain hands and having to reluctantly call just because of the pot size. The purpose of the section of the book was NOT limping in with certain hands in certain positions.

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

Gauge,

People aren't trying to treat you like a half-wit. The point everyone is trying make is the following: if it was even close to correct for you to limp in the first place, it MUST be correct for you to call one more bet when it gets back to you. It sucks because now you're going to play a potentially dominated hand in bad position against the whole world, but you simply can't fold a suited ace getting 10:1 or so.

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

A9s is a substantially stronger hand than QJo - and I mean substantially by a mile. A9s is a +EV hand, and QJo is a -EV hand, over the long term with average players.


In fact A9s is slightly stronger than KQo, 77, and KJo

However, A9s is slightly weaker than QJs, KTs and JTs.


In loose passive games, such as the games at Commerce in LA, you can call in early position with A9s provided that you have a good read on the later position players and don't expect a raise. The REASON you can play this hand in EP in these games is that you can expect enough callers behind to pay you off later if you hit - though being OOP you'll need to be tricky to extract.

QJo is a different situation - it's a unsuited connector, and not substantially different than JTo or T9o.

Yea, it looks pretty, but it's hard to play OOP. QJo is weaker that 33, it is weaker than Q6s - would you ever think of playing Q6s in EP? Hell, I don't even play Q6s on the button.

Playing QJo OOP is one of the huge leaks in most beginner's games. It's a late position hand.



Now, getting to your other questions, once you are in the pot, folding for ONE more bet is ludicrous - you are now getting twice the pot odds you were getting before. If it is raised and then THREE bet, then you can consider folding some hands.

Remember that playing weaker suited aces (A8s and below) is mainly for nut flush value - but you need to hit at least the nut draw on the flop to continue. Keep in mind that if you hod two suited cards, you'll actually completely your flush only 3% of the time. SO you need to see the flop as cheaply as possible, AND you need to have 4 or more in the pot with you to pay you off if you do hit it.

A9s is a special case, as in loose passive games in UNRAISED POTS, it often holds up when an Ace flops, as any weaker ace is going to pay you off (and in these games, most retards call PF with any ace).


AB




AB

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

[ QUOTE ]

Yea, it looks pretty, but it's hard to play OOP. QJo is weaker that 33, it is weaker than Q6s - would you ever think of playing Q6s in EP? Hell, I don't even play Q6s on the button.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fantastic information.. really put it in perspective

Also I didnt mean to seem like I was hurt, I can take a good jab.. I knew it was such a blatantly obvious question to most of you and I just wanted to explain why I was asking it. Thanks for the help guys. Youve yet to let me down

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

SSHE also says to always call one bet back to you if you've limped in. 2 bets back is a different story, you need to tighten up almost as much as if you were cold calling in the first place.

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

It doesn't matter what your cards are here, always call.

There are some situations where you might fold, but limping and then calling a single raise is never one of them.

If you limp, and there is a raise and then a reraise behind you, you will fold some hands.

A more subtle example is when you complete the SB (especially when the SB is large, e.g. a $10 blind in a $15/30 game). Let's say a late player limps, you limp for $5 more getting 8:1 on your money, the BB raises. Now you're out of position and getting worse odds, there are hands here you could fold.

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
It sucks because now you're going to play a potentially dominated hand in bad position against the whole world, but you simply can't fold a suited ace getting 10:1 or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

It kinda sucks in the same sense that it would suck to draw to a gutshot getting 11:1. But at least here the hand is easier to play if you hit.

If you find that playing a hand like Axs is tough once you've limped in and then are facing a raise, then you shouldn't limp with that hand to begin with. Once you're in you have to play, but theoretically if you give up tons and tons of cash when you hit middle pair or top pair and lose to a better kicker, then you can fold Axs to the raise. Everyone who is telling you to call assumes you know now to play poker without losing your shirt. Pretty much every early decision in poker assumes you know what to do later in the hand. There are lots of books telling you when it's OK to play 65s preflop, but there are lots of players losing money with that hand too. So you can't follow preflop advice if you're a complete klutz postflop.

So, if you can't play after the flop, then fold Axs to begin with. If you think Axs is a decent hand to play, then never fold it to a single raise once you've limped.

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
A9s is a substantially stronger hand than QJo - and I mean substantially by a mile. A9s is a +EV hand, and QJo is a -EV hand, over the long term with average players.


In fact A9s is slightly stronger than KQo, 77, and KJo

However, A9s is slightly weaker than QJs, KTs and JTs.


QJo is a different situation - it's a unsuited connector, and not substantially different than JTo or T9o.

Yea, it looks pretty, but it's hard to play OOP. QJo is weaker that 33

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making these all sound like absolutes, and they absolutely are not. For one thing it's all situational, for another it depends on your postflop skill, and for another there is "playability" of a hand to take into account, not just raw strength.

QJo has pluses and minuses relative to JTo, and vice versa.

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yea, it looks pretty, but it's hard to play OOP. QJo is weaker that 33, it is weaker than Q6s - would you ever think of playing Q6s in EP? Hell, I don't even play Q6s on the button.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fantastic information.. really put it in perspective

[/ QUOTE ]

How about if I said his statement is extremely debatable at best, downright wrong at wrong? Would that put it in perspective?

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

[ QUOTE ]

You are making these all sound like absolutes, and they absolutely are not. For one thing it's all situational, for another it depends on your postflop skill, and for another there is "playability" of a hand to take into account, not just raw strength.

QJo has pluses and minuses relative to JTo, and vice versa.

[/ QUOTE ]


Is AA a stronger hand than AK? Yes it is, this is an absolute OVER THE LONG TERM. And QJ is stronger than JT, as an absolute over the long term. This should be self evident to anyone with the most basic grasp of math. Look at this chart:

http://www.tightpoker.com/hands/ev_position.html


My post is based on EV over all positions combined, based on stats of 115 million actual hands with average players.

It was used to demonstrate relative PF hand strengths. I was speaking in terms of EV, as a generality. I never said anything was "absolute" - though long term, in play with average players, that's based on h EV of these hands PF.

in hands of a SKILLED player, of course things are a bit different - clearly, the OP is in need of some fundamental advice, and advanced plays are not appropriate to discuss until the fundamentals are mastered.

QJo is a -EV hand if you ignore position - in EP is is a major loser, and in late position only a very minor winner (about +.03 EV on the CO or button). A9s is +EV in all positions, but playing it in EP depends on the texture of the table, and your relative position to certain types of other players.


AB

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

Hi AB,

Are you aware that the chart you are referencing does not support the claims you are making? You say

[ QUOTE ]
QJo is weaker that 33, it is weaker than Q6s

[/ QUOTE ]

But then you give a link to a chart that shows Q6s as a bigger loser in every position than QJo! What? Are you even reading this stuff before you post it?

I get that you're trying to offer simplified advice to a player who is perhaps just starting out. I don't think that strategy really serves them well though... thinking about starting hands in absolute terms isn't really the way to go preflop. If you are going to talk in absolute terms... at least get it right! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


-eric

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

hmmm... A year ago I had taken that chart, loaded it I to excel, and ranked all hands by average ev for allnpositions... Im out playig at the moment, but when i get home I'll look at my exce sheet and see whats up.

Interestinly, in utg/utg+1 Q6o is stronger than Q6s... I misread thisnearlier...

Thenpoint still remains than QJo is a horrid hand in ep.


AB

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
And QJ is stronger than JT, as an absolute over the long term. This should be self evident to anyone with the most basic grasp of math.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. For example, JT is less likely to be dominated by a raiser than QJ is. As I said, very situational.

[ QUOTE ]
Look at this chart:

http://www.tightpoker.com/hands/ev_position.html


My post is based on EV over all positions combined, based on stats of 115 million actual hands with average players.

[/ QUOTE ]

That chart is kind of interesting but near meaningless for our purposes. All it shows is what poker players, including plenty of crappy players, have done with those hands.

[ QUOTE ]
It was used to demonstrate relative PF hand strengths.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, that chart doesn't do that.

According to that chart, 44 and 22 lose money from the dealer button, but make money in earlier positions.


[ QUOTE ]
I was speaking in terms of EV, as a generality. I never said anything was "absolute"

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you used that word twice in your post already.

[ QUOTE ]
though long term, in play with average players, that's based on h EV of these hands PF.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't really have a grasp of the math and statistics involved here. That chart doesn't show EV of those hands for average players. It shows the average profit of all players.

[ QUOTE ]
in hands of a SKILLED player, of course things are a bit different - clearly, the OP is in need of some fundamental advice, and advanced plays are not appropriate to discuss until the fundamentals are mastered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, ahem.

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And QJ is stronger than JT, as an absolute over the long term. This should be self evident to anyone with the most basic grasp of math.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. For example, JT is less likely to be dominated by a raiser than QJ is. As I said, very situational.


[/ QUOTE ]



Poker Stove:

5,394,338 games 17.014 secs 317,052 games/sec
Board: Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 62.320% 61.92% 00.45% 3340158 24540.00 { TT+, ATs+, KQs, AJo+, KQo }
Hand 1: 19.856% 18.90% 00.97% 1019742 52303.50 { QJo }
Hand 2: 17.824% 17.04% 00.80% 919296 43008.50 { JTo }

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

Alienboy, what exactly are you trying to prove w/ that pokerstove? That JTo, when dominated by QJo and up against another opponent with a big hand is an underdog to both hands?

Try Hand 0 against hand 1 by itself, and then do the same with hand 0 against hand 2. I think you will find some interesting results.

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

I see your point:


PS:
.....

3,435,672 games 8.052 secs 426,685 games/sec
Board: Dead:
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 72.302% 71.79% 00.59% 2466532 20273.00 { TT+, ATs+, KQs, AJo+, KQo }
Hand 1: 27.698% 27.14% 00.59% 932396 20273.00 { QJo }


.....


5,486,230 games 13.249 secs 414,086 games/sec
Board: Dead:
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 70.590% 70.20% 00.44% 3851227 23926.50 { TT+, ATs+, KQs, AJo+, KQo }
Hand 1: 29.410% 28.99% 00.44% 1590618
23926.50 { JTo }


I see your point, that JTo is marginally stronger than QJo in this situation, but isn't that moot?

Are we playing QJo or JTo against a raise when we know this is the raiser's tight range?

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

this conversation is a result of simplified poker books and advice they espouse. All those "starting ranges" and "strength charts" are a great way to make the leap from the unshaven masses into actually becoming a winning player, but they are at the end simplifications.

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

[ QUOTE ]

Are we playing QJo or JTo against a raise when we know this is the raiser's tight range?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously not.

I think the real point of this whole exchange though is that you can't look at a chart and say "oh, QJo is a stronger hand than JTo because it won x more after x hands". As Jeff said, all that chart shows is what some poker players have done with those hands and what the results were. Interesting yes, but not all that meaningful. It's all situational.

I think you know that though so this thread has probably run its course [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Interestinly, in utg/utg+1 Q6o is stronger than Q6s... I misread thisnearlier...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if you see that, it's a demonstration that the numbers have not converged. Surely you don't really think Q6o is better than Q6s, do you? That's crazy talk.

Consider that even in a very large database, the number of hands where any kind of Q6 is played in EP may be pretty small. You are certain to see fluctuations in these numbers due to sample size.

[ QUOTE ]
Thenpoint still remains than QJo is a horrid hand in ep.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the risk of nitpicking, I think "horrid" overstates the case. But yeah, folding it in EP is excellent advice.

thanks.
Eric

Re: Very Simple Straightforward 2/4 Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interestinly, in utg/utg+1 Q6o is stronger than Q6s... I misread thisnearlier...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if you see that, it's a demonstration that the numbers have not converged. Surely you don't really think Q6o is better than Q6s, do you? That's crazy talk.
{/quote]


No, of course I don't think that - just interesting in that as I read this chart more closely, I begin to see some of its deficiencies. I wasn't able to communicate this last night (posting from my iPhone is kind of a pain, actually) Here at home though:

Obviously Q6s is much stronger than Q6o.

Why does it appear opposite in this chart? Because this is a chart of the ev for average players in real hands.

Even bad players fold Q6o in EP PF, but bad players still play Q6s in EP. That is, people are more apt to overplay Q6s than Q6o, thus resulting is lower numbers for Q6s.



[ QUOTE ]

Consider that even in a very large database, the number of hands where any kind of Q6 is played in EP may be pretty small. You are certain to see fluctuations in these numbers due to sample size.

[ QUOTE ]
Thenpoint still remains than QJo is a horrid hand in ep.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the risk of nitpicking, I think "horrid" overstates the case. But yeah, folding it in EP is excellent advice.

thanks.
Eric

[/ QUOTE ]



Okay, so let's put this to rest - My choice of Q6s to compare to QJo was a bit off (though not THAT much). It would have been better to chose a different hand.

AB