***October Low Content Thread***

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Anything wrong with seeing this flop? Hand pretty much sucked but was purdy with 5 people in.

[/ QUOTE ]LetsGetItOn - I don't think your post belongs in the low content thread. I think posts like this one merit a thread of their own. (I don't mean that as a criticism). But since you have put your post here, I'll chip in my two cents worth.

I don't personally like hands with low pairs like threes, except mainly for their blocking value and scoop potential when you have a good low draw. For example, A233, A334, and A335 seem nice to me, even if rainbows, and I hate rainbows. And of course I like AA33, especially if double suited. And I'd play double-suited-KK33.

But your QQ33 seems fraught with peril, even though double suited.

However, I have to admit that I'd probably call the raise from the big blind, especially with four potential customers.

But I'd almost be dreading a flop with a trey or a flush draw, and you're only going to see a flop with a queen about one out of eight times (something like that).

I think if you do play that hand, you probably will feel compelled to continue when the flop has a trey. And when the flop does have a trey, you're probably looking at playing for half the pot and your high half is in peril.

All in all, unless the hand also has an ace working with a three, I think a pair of threes, per se, in a hand is more of a liability than an asset in a limit game.

Phat Mack is going to get on my case for being so loose, but O.K. from the big blind for a single raise with five opponents, I'd see the flop too.

But I would hate that pair of threes.

Buzz