I found this post from Yeodan from another thread who presented data on his lifetime results with suited broadways UTG at MicroStakes 9max Online. (Probably slightly tougher than LLSNL live? I don’t play online, so not sure).



QTs/KJs are medium winners, JTs is a medium loser. KTs/QJs are close to break-even (small losers).

Interestingly, in that same thread I postulated that JTs/QJs/QTs/KTs are problem hands in EP, and some players may benefit from dropping them all together.

However, I still think these hands are +EV against weak competition for moderately skilled players and I’ll continue to open them in my LLSNL games.

If a given hand is a standard open in theory, we can just move on to postflop and acknowledge that some care must be taken when flopping a pair with these hands due to kicker domination. For example, as others noted, a smaller bet size should have been used on this flop.

Your goddamn data has no place in our shouting match about opinions.

Sample size is too small to draw conclusions about specific combinations, for example over a much larger sample JTs << QTs for me (not filtered for position). No longer have the database though.

My feelings don't care about your facts?

Is this a joke? That sample size is less than worthless if it's duping people into trying to draw conclusions based off of it.

Since there is debate, just to add a vote I think ChaosInEquilibrium already weighed in perfectly on QTs UTG and why it is an open at least some of the time, especially in this game as described. This presumes some reasonably good post-flop decisions being made of course.

Also to weigh in on original posters main question, once I am check raised here on the flop this is an easy fold unless I have significant history with the villain and know he's stacking off with all his top pairs or even under pairs plus his gutshots or random air. Since that isn't how the game situation was described, easy fold as-described.

This is opposite of what my intuition was after reading this hand, so I'd like to explore more to see if I'm missing something here. Generally, even 4-way in a presumably weak game when I open a hand like QTs and flop TP ok-kicker, even on a nice dry board like this, I'm c-betting 100% and choosing a size that folds out overcards but keeps in the weaker top-pairs, all PP < TP, and other middle or bottom pair hands. Draws/gutshots may or may not come along but I don't want them coming for free. So maybe a small bet works fine for this, maybe it takes a 2/3 pot size bet or more. If I don't know for sure, I'm choosing the 2/3 pot size bet. Betting for value since it is very likely I have the best hand, plus the value of equity-denial here with the T as the top pair seems way too important to me to just check this and allow it to check through. Depending on runout I'm expecting this to be a one-street-value hand but I want to get that on the flop and deny equity to as many other hands as possible out of the gate.

AlanBostick, if you find checking in this spot more profitable overall, what lines would you plan to take when someone else bets flop, or when it checks through what lines would you take on turn cards that don't improve your hand?

We have four buckets to put all the hands in our range into: premium hands, strong draws, marginal made hands, and junk. In a four-way pot, which bucket do we want to put this particular hand on this particular board?

Well, it depends.

All assuming you know how to play postflop.

QTs from EP is:

In a passive game: strong.
In an average game: marginal.
In an aggressive game, or against strong players: junk.