A bit of a more general question: what do you think is the correct way to play hands like TJs/JQs/QTs, also KTs/KJs/KQs in early position (UTG to +3 I guess) at super loose, mostly passive tables?

Normally I'd fold most of these hands, but I think there's an argument to be made for just limping with them and seeing a flop 6-way+.

I'm thinking of the kind of table where if we limp, there might be a raise behind us about half the time, but every single person who limped/would have limped will call the raise almost 100% of the time, so we can call and still be getting great odds to make the kind of hand that will stack one of the fish in the pot with us.

However, we'll still be out of position to most of the table, most of the time, which means if we don't smash it we're always x/folding (which even in position we would have to be doing most of the time, hard to bluff with 5 others in the pot). We could this way end up bleeding off a lot of money just trying to hit, alternatively, even hands we raise in position, at these kinds of tables we're not going to have much room to bluff at all the majority of the time. There are often just going to be too many callers pre flop, even when we try to thin the field with our raise sizing.

I usually like raising small with these hands UTG because I hate open limping, but it's probably a leak.

Raise almost 100% of the time, never lol limping

Not sure what super loose passive table means

It's the standard limp every hand table with the occasional 99+s/AQ+s putting in raises.

Soft full ring game you can play all of them up front and for a raise without making things too tough on yourself or your range. If you usually fold the majority of these hands then you don't have to incorpaortate all of them in to utg either, you can add in QJs, JTs and ignore QTs, KTs if you want as you likely would want to add in some other hands before those last two.

I open all of them for a raise unless average effective stacks are pretty short. At loose-passive tables you almost always get to see a flop against wide ranges and these hands play pretty well post-flop. At less fishy tables with more aggressive 3-betting I'd fold some of the weaker ones like KTs/QTs

If the table is really loose (like it's going to go 6 ways even if I raise) then I limp. If it's going to be like 2-4 ways I'll raise.

It doesn't matter a lot what you do with it. I think raising on really loose tables is probably -EV but not drastically so. Folding is fine if you just want to avoid being OOP.

I used to open limp these hands 100% of the time. My tables in the past were quite loose and quite passive and filled with postflop payoff monkeys, so the plan was to just get into a hand for as cheap as possible, hit, and then get paid off postflop. Yeah, being OOP sucked, but it simply meant it was slightly more difficult to get paid off.

But now my tables have changed in that while they are still extremely loose (therefore raising is very meh building a bloated multiway pot OOP) they are also much more aggro (probably see more raised pots than limped ones) plus the players are much less incompetent postflop (therefore I'm much less likely to get paid off, especially OOP). My guess is that these hands were only marginally profitable OOP to begin with at the better tables (the increase in rake will have diminished there profitability even more at those same tables), but now I'm fairly convinced they are unprofitable OOP at most tables now (and that they need position to be profitable). So I dump them OOP preflop (with the exception of KQs which I'm guessing/hoping is still strong enough to be profitable) unless I find myself in a time warp awesome (loose / passive / postflop payoffy) table.

Course, without having any statistical evidence whatsoever, this is pure guesstimating work on my part. But it's the best I can come up with.

GcluelessNLnoobG

I am certain that you should limp them and I've confirmed it after thinking about it.

You're not going to be in a bad place raising them for a normal sizing either, but im convinced if you can play well post flop vs. live table dynamics then limping them is optimal. This is a complete 180 to my poker philosophy up to 6 months ago.

GG, everytime you open fold QJs an angel loses her wings.

Chris, Doesn't your statements have to take into consideration stack sizes?
My #1 concern is overcoming the rake when I hit, so if I have 22 at a 'really loose-passive' 1/2NL game that will get 6 callers @ $6, then $6 it is.
If majority of stacks are U$150, then maybe $4, but I never let the BB in for free in a 'really loose-passive' game. Is that so bad?

6-way to flop for $2 = $12 - $2 rake = $10 [rake includes BBJ- $1 @$10 & $20]
6-way to flop for $4 = $24 - $4 rake = $20
6-way to flop for $6 = $36 - $5 rake = $31

Surely you'll make $90 [the vast majority of the time] when you open for $6 & flop a set when avg stack is $200.

I'm sure you've seen people get felted when UTG open/raises small with small pair, flops a set & Rec never sees it - not a clue.

DISCLAIMER: My win rate is not 10BBs+ pr hr over my last 2000 hrs, so I am not a Crusher.

I like limping with hands like this a lot better than raising in early position. Especially at the tables I play at where people limp behind surprisingly strong hands and are really loose preflop. If I were @ a tough table on 1/3 I would fold, then ask myself why I haven't changed tables. Offsuit and suited weaker broadways I wouldn't even bother with from really early position.

Up until this year, I was letting the angels have their wings. I've convinced myself this year that the table conditions have finally trended towards this being a mistake.

GIcouldbewrongG


Realizing the affect of rake has really convinced me to change my game this year (to even more nittier).

Here's a fun little example. BB is bought, we raise to $15 on the Button, he calls, we cbet $20, he calls, we bet the turn, he folds. Super duper standard. Pot is $70. Our room now rakes 10% to a maximum of $7, so the $7 max rake is reached. Minus the $1 BBJ drop. Minus the tip. So we took $35 off this guy, but $9 of that actually went to the house. The rake was: 26%!!! And that is in a pot we end up winning (instead of one we lose by barrelling into the best hand).

And this was in position with initiative! Am I really that much better than my opponents, especially OOP, especially with a speculative hand?

GI'vedecidedI'mnotthatgood;inb4"Iconcludedthatabou tyouyearsago"G

That rake is extra-brutal, but it's becoming that way in many games ($5+1 is probably the median in games I played in this year). I'm hoping more rooms start making $1/3 the smallest game in the house.

My play has been to open limp small suited broadways (KJs, QJs, JTs) and small pockets in EP if the game is sufficiently loose and doesn't face us with a large enough risk of being iso-raised.

1/3 NL is literally the only game in our room. Scary thing is they've increased the rake $1 each of the last two years, and I see no reason why they wouldn't keep doing this.

Goverall,answerisverytable/rakedependent,imoG

You guys really worry about rake too much.

I'm not sure if I do or not. I certainly didn't consider it much when my room was $5 maximum, but I've certainly thought about it a lot more as it's gone up. In the example I mentioned, the $5 max rake rakes 20% vs the $7 rake of 26%. In a game of thin edges, it's not going to take much to turn a winning hand into a losing hand, unless we think we have a massive edge on the table.

GandlatelyI'mnotconvincedmyedgeisasmassiveasIthoug htitwasG

Rake's a pretty big deal. My max rake at 200NL is $4.

I've had my first breakeven month in a while. If I didn't pay any rake over 15k hands, I'd be up 13BI.

If I had 30% rakeback (my site annoyingly offers no RB, I'd be up 4BI).

So yeah 10% max at $7 is a pretty big deal. + $1 BBJ and assuming you tip $1

Well, I think he means, or at least I'll say what i mean, is that rake should not be the deciding factor in a vpip. Its a consideration, sure. And yes its interesting/sad to realize that in a $70 heads up pot you've profited $28, that is still > $0.

And KQs will net you > $0 from any position in live poker. Its not close.

Yeah, but the net $28 profit (note: it is actually $26) was in the times I won, where I was taxed 26%; I have to offset this with the times I lose.

KQs profitable from anywhere, not close? I thought a big part of the difference between winning and losing players is how they play hands other than AA/KK/~ (where the profit per hand plummets drastically), with losing players mostly losing with most other hands. And KQs is clearly on the lower end of the good end of hands. I mean, I doubt losing players are playing KQs profitably, no? Might not take much (rake, OOP, not totally ******ed opponents, etc.) to be a pretty marginal hand even for ok players.

GIcouldbewrongG

I must play in the highest rake place in the world then. 10% up to $8 + $1 BBJ at 1/2. Max

From my understanding, I think upsidedownland might even be worse.

Geverysinglethinginpokeristrendinginthewrongdirect ionG

Yeah.

QJs utg1... I better let this one go bc the rake is such and such...

If that's truly part of my thought process then I better find another game or get a lot better at poker fast. I get the idea that a certain hand is overall breakeven, but if I'm really getting deep into it, the first thing I would look at is how folding QJs impacts the EV of my overall range before how the rake impacts any one hand in it...

Well, it's all part of the equation. Lately I've concluded that OOP + bigger rake + more preflop aggression + less payoff ******s than before = nit tight in this spot, so I'd lean towards folding most of the time (whereas before when a lot of these factors were different I was fine getting into a pot).

GbutIcouldbewrongG

Back to the whole limp vs ep raise discussion, I'm sure we've all seen a thousand hands where a Q high flush got felted by K4s, etc, because the whole world got to see the flop for the price of a cup of coffee.

But if our thought is that raising with QJs with remove the weaker hands like K4s, doesn't this often leave us OOP to dominating hands?

GcluelessNLnoobG