Hi all,

Would like some input on this.

Hero: I'm the effective stack with 143. I've been raising a ton pre just been missing flops. (ex: raising AK flop 3 5 6 against like 2 or 3 people)

V1: older man has roughly 300. Playing pretty standard bets when he has it folds when he doesn't. Doesn't seem to be too aggressive, however, fairly new to the table

V2: regish player. Played with him before. Seems a little tilted had to rebuy. He has position on me and is playing a ton in position. has roughly 400

OTTH:

Folds to hero who raises to QJ in the HJ to $12. V2 calls on the button. V1 calls in the BB.

Flop (37)

983

V1 bets 18. I have like 130 ish left and there is now 55 in the pot. I decide to just shove all in. Don't think v 1 ever folds an over pair. I'm in okay shape against the rare sets as well.

Thoughts on this?

Not bad. Obv committing this hand at this stack size, but I think you might have more FE if you force a turn shove which means raising a bit small on the flop. It would hopefully seem a lot less like a punt. I'm not a short stack player though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

High variance but it'll show a small profit at worst.

Probably play it the same.

Pretty much what rhombo said, probably the best flop you could hope for asides from a straight or flush so not folding with a short stack. Me personally I would raise flop and shove turn but your way will probably get you called even lighter by v putting you exactly what you have. Wp

Not that I think shoving if bad poker but ... if you're bluffing you have to believe you have substantial fold equity, especially when the alternative is good. I like the idea of getting V2 to tag along in the pot and to give you even better odds on your draw by just calling.

Does anyone play this pretty much the same?

It's OK as played.
I personally like to call the flop and then stick it all in on the turn regardless of action or the next card, but I think shoving flop is fine too.

This is a well played hand

With only 48bb, I don't think QJs 2 off the button with a reg who's looking to play position is a good open. At 100bb, it's an almost always raise for me, but not with only half that. I'd open it on the button even this shallow. To be clear, I think it's only very slightly off and I'd probably do the same thing in the moment.

AP, I'd cram it in OTF. V might well put us on a big draw and call light but many of the cards that make our hand are also good bluffing cards (3 flush or both straight cards and overcards to the board), so we're less likely to get paid off if we hit. That increases the value of a shove and decreases the value of playing to get paid.

Also, a minraise puts 109 in the pot with 95 behind. I'd rather have a bit more for the turn shove.

I think you want to maximize your FE - you're never folding so getting folds is your paramount concern. For that end, I think raise flop, stuff turn is marginally better. But I'm nitpicking (we all are). WP


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Raising ~9% of your stack with QJ in MP is probably not a winning move long term.

AP, CRAI is probably fine, though I like it more if V had bet more. You're doing fine against overpairs but it's definitely a high variance play.

I probably raise less and barrel the turn. Villains give up on the turn too much in general.

Reload pre

These response are really funny. I'd be curious to know how often ya'll play 50bb stacks to make such ridiculous claims. QJ is a REALLY good hand. I'm opening here 100% of the time and this is super high up in my range. If you don't understand why this is profitable then you have a very limited understanding of poker. The fact that the button is on tilt would shrink my opening range but not to the point that I'm folding QJ. If button/Co were playing solid and 1 or both of the blinds were fish then I would open 63 here all day and it would be a profitable play even at 48bbs.


BTW, we are in LP here, not MP.

You're probably right. It was a vague and poorly worded criticism. I object more to playing so short than playing QJdd, which I agree is an awesome hand at least when we have implied odds. It can work short stacked if played aggressively enough but most people don't play it that way.

I think the hijack is generally considered (late) middle position. If we're 10 handed here you might call it late though more commonly it would be mp3. But w/e

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

+1

Whether we want to be sitting on a $143 stack preflop is up to us (i.e. no excuses for not topping up our stack preflop *unless* we are purposely playing a shortstack strategy at this table).

With this small stack size and loose V2 playing his Button, I'd more open limp this hand. We still have 4 players that haven't looked at their hand yet, very good chance we get 2 callers (as has happened) and we end up creating a small SPR pot OOP with a hand that doesn't want a small SPR pot (noting that our most likely hand we're going to flop is a mediocre TP, not a massive draw like we happened to luck into here).

SPR is 3.5 and we've flopped a monster (overs + gutshot + flush draw). My original plan would have been to check/shove over floaty/betty/tilty V2, so nothing really changes when V1 bets. Bunch of money in the pot (relative to stacks) worth winning, we should have decent FE to go with our good hand equity. Shove is fine, imo.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Meh, imo.

Most of the time we flop a mediocre TP, and if table is tight, we often simply limit the field to hands that dominate us in a small SPR with no wiggle room. We rarely flop the monster draw like we did here, and flopping a mediocre draw (such as just a flush draw) in a small SPR pot is kinda meh.

And HJ still has 2 players behind us in position that could call (making some meh postflop situations in small SPR pots) plus 2 in the blinds that haven't looked at their hand yet. The more I play, the more I'm beginning to realize the concept of grouping the HJ with EP/MP ain't a terrible concept.

DC, I'm assuming you never play with a 50bb stacks, right? QJs plays much better limped with these stacks than raised, especially at a typical 1/3 NL table where (a) raises are lol huge and (b) raises often go multiway, imo.

GimoG

THIS

My default is to buyin for 60bbs. I've bought in at this stack level for thousands of hours of 5/T, thousands of hours of 2/5, hundreds of hours of (5/)T/20, and hundreds of hours at lower levels. Sometimes I choose to buyin for 100 or 200bbs and in some games I play have a 100bb min-buy (many of my T/20 hours, some of my 5/T hours) but my default is 60bbs. There was a time where I always topped back up to 60bbs but my default now is not to as my aggressive style combined with the awkward stack sizes tend to cause problems for most live opponents.

I can't imagine I would limp QJ suited in this spot very often. It's way too high up in my range. I agree that we want position but if we have two tight players to our left then we will gain position and have advantages in position, initiative, and skill if we don't have it in hand strength as well (that's probably close). If we have a loose player to our left then we lose position but still have advantages in initiative, skill, and definitely hand range.

If I have a loose passive on my direct left I would tend to change seats or tables if possible but it's not because it would prevent me from opening this hand but rather because it would prevent me from opening the lower parts of my range (ie junk).

edit: It should be noted that I play anywhere from TAG to LAG to maniac but my default is probably maniac which was how I played when I was an online 6max player. So it's sort of an apples to oranges comparison between the way I play and the way you (GG) play...still you should be able to profitably open QJ sooted from the HJ. I really hate open limping this hand...especially at this stack depth where you can raise with hands that you aren't deep enough to call with.

Not opening this hand (to whatever your standard size is) is a big mistake

While I can understand DC reasoning (noting that in an earlier thread today he said basically don't bloat the pot with these types of hands / these stacks, but that was from EP, so obviously position is the tipping point for him here as it should be), I'm still not convinced. Course in my 1/3 NL game if you raise to $12 in the HJ everyone gets there cards back and we go 6ways to the flop still (i.e. I expect loose Button to call, which will often bring along both blinds, and now we're 4way with SPR like < 3).

But also agree that different strokes for different folks and their various styles.

Really disagree with Ehole's post how not opening here could possibly be a "big" mistake. There are lots of big mistakes one can make in poker; open limping QJs in the HJ ain't one of them (if it is a mistake, at worse it is a small one).

GcluelessNLnoobG

Limping is no doubt profitable aswell compared to folding,

but raising > limp >>>>>>>>>>> fold

Basically what I'm saying (and I think we're agreeing?) is that open limping here can't be labelled a big mistake.

GjustclarifyingincaseOPthinksitismandatorytoraiseh ereG

Short stack like this is perfect for pairs and AK. Playing QJs here is largely for balance if that matters in your game, but the money is in big pairs & AK. The suited/connectedness here is half wasted at this stack size but pretty standard to open this hand and shove flop. The trouble is mostly you flop a pair and then just have QJo and a marginally profitable hand where luckily the short stack keeps you from losing too much. But still, QJs is too good to fold here.

I think limping sucks pretty bad here b/c someone raises behind you so often and now your implied odds are wrecked just like when you open, but there you set yourself up to have fold equity post flop. But if you are somehow in a situation where a raise behind is unlikely (SB or BB) limping or checking could be fine. Just not instead of opening from late position.

Absolutely nothing wrong with short-stacking if you like starting like that. I actually used to do that when I was newer, especially to live, and it's a great way to warm up without having to make any real decisions. Plus people call short stack all-ins way too loosely.

I need to re-read it but Ed Millers mini-chapter on short stacking in Getting Started in Hold'em (I think?) is really good, actually worth the price of the book which is actually about limit.

Ed Miller's short stack theory means you have to be an incredibly patient live player but I have known some that have made it work but to me it just feels like watching paint dry. It might be more fruitful in rooms with good hourly pay rate perks or free rolls attatched to hours played though.