grunch

I'm folding pre. Sometimes I might raise it if I'm bored and am trying to induce action with a table full of whitey-tighteys but I don't think that's the case here ... so I'd fold pre...

as played - w/o it being the nut flush I would prob just call vs the reg passive player and raise vs a laggy player... but if I get re-raised man that sucks complete and total ass and I'm not good enough to fold after re-raising so .... I'm just b/c'ing here but that's not to say that 3! folding isn't the correct play - it probably is - I just don't think I could do it ... ... a leak of mine I guess ....

FYP, first.

Whether to limp Qc9c is quite a difficult decision IMO. I recently concluded that limping early with marginal hands in 3/6 is probably a leak of mine, but Q9s is like on the borderline. QTs I might have to play and I'd probaby raise with QJs. But, saving marginal hands for late position allows you to be more certain that the hand won't get raised and you will also know how multi-way it will be, which is very significant in part because of the LARGE rake of 3/6 and 4/8 IMO.

You didn't note table dynamics. I'll assume it's suitable to limp a speculative hand like this UTG, 'cause otherwise is a questionable move. But anyway....

I think I 3bet/(sigh) call river. Aren't we getting like 14:1 at that point? I'm not folding a Q-high flush with those odds. Passive pf/aggro post makes me think there will be enough smaller flushes in his range to call profitably.

Anecdotally, I had a (perhaps???) similar villain online the other night, running maybe like vpip 65-70/pfr 12, seemingly MORE aggro (even very mildly spewy at times) post-flop, and I had hand against him (which I misplayed) that is somewhat analogous and maybe worth a mention:

He limped from EP, folded to me on CO with A4 which I raised (hoping to iso), unfortunately a nit otb 3bet. We all call. Flop is:

253

Villain DONKS, I raise, nit BTN calls, villain calls.

Turn is 4

Villain checks, I bet, BTN calls, villain RAISES, I call, BTN calls.

River is 6

Villain bets, I raise, BTN folds, villain 3bets, I get a shameful case of the mubs picturing the 3 in his hand and just call .---->Villain had led into TWO opponents and 3bet when raised on a 4flush board with 97.

Obv not exactly the same, but I bring it up to make the point that bad players sometimes don't consider the board (OP did mention him slowplaying trips where it should have been raised) or what their opponents are telling them. Thus, based on the limited information we have, I don't like the notion of 3bet/fold on the river. I'd 3bet/call.

Nice post. I can't help but wonder if maybe villain misread and thought he had actually made a straight flush there. If the 3d was 3h, then he would have had it.

I think there are some tight reasonable thinking players who absolutely can't be losing to OP and their 4! means you're surely beat, but even in that case it might still be good to call because you don't want him to decide to bluff you off a big pot like that in the future, ever.

I'd have called the river hoping to get otb's overcall.

This seems to be the opposite of what SSHE seems to say. Maybe that's true in a tougher game than the one I was in, but I'm not sure about the weaker games at the low limits. I'll quote from page 89:




For what it's worth, SSHE actually recommends calling in some spots with Q9s when you're UTG. But I wouldn't mind folding this hand in the future since almost everyone else in this thread thinks I should fold it. I think I was influenced somewhat by an old thread which Ed Miller started, and he was trying to encourage people to play more hands against bad players. I think I would have mucked the Q9s if I never saw that thread.

Q9s UTG.

I don't know what was happening at the table. This hand is a maybe. Here's what I'm looking for.
5+ limpers almost a 'sure thing'
pfr < 5%
I'm clearly the favorite at this table
Flop raise % VERY low. Meaning I get to see a turn for 1 bet at most.
Loose postflop guys.

If these things are the case then this is totally playable. In fact, this doesn't even need to be that good a scenario. Your loss on this hand is marginal especially provided that you don't do this (or similar) often.... which you won't. Q9s utg at a super loose passive table... not a leak worth considering.

The gain of playing this hand is that you are 'in there gambling it up!' The other players may give more action because of this. They may 'respect' your game... or at least think you play better than them and emulate some of you game. If they start limping in utg w/ Q9s... or less... and thinking this is a good idea (when they don't really have the post skills to do such) can be really good. They may not differentiate between Q9s and T7s.

This posted hand is pretty super. You've got to have rediculous +EV here. TP w/ flush draw in a field that calls hee-haw style? Seriously, this is exactly why you play this hand. So they beat you. The only thing I can say is that the multi-way facet of this makes me think the V is highly likely to be drawing to a flush. His raise on river says "flush over here boss."

Raising on the river you need to be a 2 to 1 favorite to do (or so I've read). 3rd nut (and possibly 5th or worse) may not be a 2 to 1 favorite versus a guy that raises with a "flush over here boss."

UTG is different from UTG+1 is different from UTG+2. They are all "EP", but that doesn't mean they're all the same. There are two fewer opponents to act behind you pf in UTG+2 vs. UTG ====> different.

Don't know if SSHE was just simplifying or if just dated thinking (suspect just simplifying, as it is kind of an intro text).

Surely no one would argue that there ISN'T a difference between the HJ and the BTN, but they're both "LP". I sure as h*** wouldn't treat them exactly the same, though. Same goes for the early positions (imo).

I think i Just call here. Even though the players at the 4/8 are miserable i don't like getting into raising wars with less than the nut flush. 2nd nut boat or 2nd set on a draw free board is different, but he's played the hand just like a flush draw the prevalence of people playing suited ace rag makes this look like a spot to just call, although i suspect you're raking in the pot a good amount of the time.

I must admit I'm wavering a little toward just calling raise on river, too. I have serious reservations about 3bet/fold with so little information on villain. So if deciding between call or 3bet/call, that "2-to-1 principle" (making one more when we're ahead, losing two more when we're behind) has me wavering toward just calling.

Although, fwiw, the 2-to-1 principle isn't necessarily 100% applicable: he might get the mubs and just call with a king-high flush (or even and ace-high flush like I did in example hand, if he convinces himself you have 75 of clubs). Alternately, he may spaz and cap a jack-high or ten-high flush or similar (ergo my reservation about 3bet/fold).

SSHE says you can play more hands up front because even if someone raises, you will often get at least 5 opponents calling that raise anyway. It even says that you are fine playing Q9s for two bets as long as you have many opponents.

The other reason that SSHE gives is if you're in early position, check-raising to build the pot or to protect your hand becomes easier.

I do think the book simplified a little bit (it does seem to suggest that on page 90), and in the tight games chart it does have you loosen up in middle position.

I see a lot of people at 4/8 who don't raise with the nuts on the river, even when they're last to act. It really amazes me how passive people are on the river with their bets and raises. OTOH, some people won't raise unless they have the nuts or something close to it.

Quite a few people don't go for value like they should on the river at really small stakes because they feel like the extra bet or two is nothing compared to the entire pot and that they have pretty much done their job when they get to the river with a winning hand IMO. Some also wish to be sympathetic to the loser as well of course. But we know that not taking advantage of guaranteed profit is a monumental leak .

This kind of thing should be the quintessential example of a player not understanding that profit comes from making good poker decisions and not from winning pots.

Of course. And we can use this premise to illustrate why one should think about UTG and UTG+2 as different positions (even if they are both EP). Let's do an over-simplified hypothetical:

Let's say you're at a 10-player table and EVERYONE has a vpip of 50% and pfr of 0%. You're UTG with Q9s or whatever. The BB is already in the hand if you limp; of the other eight players, you'll on average get four additional over-limpers. Thus, your average result is to go 6way to the flop (you, the BB, and four other limpers). So with that much expected action, really there's a wide range of speculative hands we can limp in with, hoping to flop well.

OTOH, let's say you're at the same table, but are UTG+2 this time with whatever speculative hand. UTG and UTG+1 fold, action is on you. If you limp now, your average expected result is that you'll get only three over-limpers, and thus see the flop 5way.

In this simplified example, being two positions further forward means an average expectation of one less player to the flop (which affects both your anticipated pot odds as well as your implieds).

UTG, you have the maximum action potential with EVERYONE still to act behind you pf. At a 10-player table 20% of the field is already folded out if it folds to you on UTG+2; at a 9-player table, that's 22% of the field, at an 8-player table, 25% of the field, and so on.

So: similar, but not the "same".

I think of them differently as far as my opening ranges, too, for the same reasons: # of people to act behind me. Fewer people left to act behind me means lesser chance someone has a beast they'll re-raise me with. This is the whole premise behind stealing from BTN or CO or SB. The reason we can often open so wide in those positions, is that with so few people left to act, we know the chances they have a good hand to play back at us is relatively small.

So my range changes based on how many seats I am from the BTN. I don't have set of hands I open from the EP positions, another set for the MP's, and a third set for the LP's. Each seat has it's own standard opening range, which I make small adjustments to based on table dynamics, player reads, metagame, etc.

Not only is leo doc the most interesting man on 2+2, but he speaks the truth about this hand.

EDIT:

By the way, I am actually shocked that there is any discussion on limping Q9s from early position. The problem with playing hands like this in early position is potential domination-- 99, QT, QJ, QQ, KQ, and AQ plus suited kings and queens of the same suit, show up often enough that we have substantial reverse implied odds playing out of position.

Nor does Q9s work as a suited connector type hand that you might be able to limp at the right sort of passive low stakes table. Q9s doesn't make enough straights for that.

I think this is a clear fold pre-flop.

I would put in one raise on the river and then call it down.

Folding here against almost anyone, much less an opponent who may or may not be completely clueless, seems like madness.

I don't think you win at this game by folding good hands in big pots, against potentially clue-free opponents, for one bet on the end.

For clarity's sake, do you mean bet the river, then call a raise; or, 3-bet the river and call 4?

I don't think you win at this game by calling 4-bets against passive opponents when it's pretty clear you're beat.

Greater than 90& clear? You're telling me that against this opponent you are +90% certain that he will not go crazy with a straight or smaller flush? Or misread the board? Or is bad enough to think two pair is good? I couldn't disagree more, but just my opinion.

I think he could have done any of those things with his first raise. I am, however, more than 90% certain he didn't do that with his 4-bet.

Allow me to quote my good friend.

That's cool.. you're better than me! I could never be that sure in this situation.

Just out of curiosity, there are no hands that you're raise/calling on this river then?

I mean no disrespect, but the question's moot since I wouldn't have open-limped utg any of the possible K-hi flushes I could have had and the action would have been different.