seriously why do i keep stacking off with qq pf?

[nichtsnutz]

Ok, graet. In that case I just run really bad with KK.

[Grunch]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, graet. In that case I just run really bad with KK.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like it to me.

Edit: It may not seem like it, but an 11k run is still a very small sample size to jujdge how well you play a single given hand. If you got KK as often as you are supposed to, in those 11k hands you got KK about 52 times. That's still few enough times that just a couple big data spikes (like getting stacked) can really throw off the results.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, to be clear, you will get allin PF to a 4-bet with Queens?

4-bets PF means AA an awful lot of the time except at the smallest of micros and the nl400+ levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that simple. Sometimes even when you're behind the opponent's range you still have to call. See the post I just bumped.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but I think a beginner/early intermediate wouldn't go far wrong with the rule 'a HU 4-bet when effective stacks are deep == AA'.

[Victor]

db, i play 400+ exclusively.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
db, i play 400+ exclusively.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weird. I can't remember the last time a TAG 4-bet and called a shove with me and showed anything but AK. Maybe happened once in my last 40k hands?

[Josh.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
db, i play 400+ exclusively.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weird. I can't remember the last time a TAG 4-bet and called a shove with me and showed anything but AK. Maybe happened once in my last 40k hands?

[/ QUOTE ]


so true. that or A7s

[Neko]

fwiw Vic, I feel pretty much that a 4 bet in the games we play in is virtually always AA, KK and AK. I dunno, maybe it's an UB thing.

Obv. I still push every time and then berate myself afterwards.

[Wada]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, to be clear, you will get allin PF to a 4-bet with Queens?

4-bets PF means AA an awful lot of the time except at the smallest of micros and the nl400+ levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that simple. Sometimes even when you're behind the opponent's range you still have to call. See the post I just bumped.

[/ QUOTE ]

Grunch where is this post? I looked for it and you've posted in so many threads recently I am not sure which one you are referring to.

Thanks.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
db, i play 400+ exclusively.

[/ QUOTE ]


In which case, you're doing nothing wrong.

[Sunny Mehta]

Obviously things are very situation dependent, and also, having a good image can play a part in how strongly you can get away with playing queens preflop. But in general, even though I can play pretty LAG at times, I've always played queens pretty cautiously before the flop. I just don't think preflop is the place to gun it out with that hand. Most of the time your equity is pretty marginal when a lot of chips go into the pot. (Save for the times you can include a decent number of dominated hands in your opponent's range when a lot of money goes in. And that's usually not the case, particularly in nitty online games.)

If you play them more passively preflop, then in those favorable spots where you actually have an overpair and someone else has a smaller one (or TPTK or something), nobody puts you on queens and you end up making money against hands that might've either folded preflop to a big reraise, or been suspicious postflop. And if you hit a crappy flop (ace or king, highly coordinated middle cards, etc), you get away cheaper.

I definitely acknowledge the other side, which is that if your opponents will not fold their dominated range to pf 3- and 4-bets, then getting a bigger preflop pot does behoove you. And the latter might certainly be true in a lot of shorthanded games where ranges are wider, etc.

However, I thought I'd play devil's advocate to the argument of blindly willing to raise and reraise preflop with queens like they're the nizzles.

-S