table is pretty aggres..and calling raises cold.
figured to be playing 4-5 way in a raised pot 50% of the time...
PF call is outside the range of SSHE, but close.

I'll leave reasoning out for now...

no significant reads that came into play for me..let me know if you'd like one


Party Poker 0.50/1 Hold'em (9 handed) converter

Preflop: Actuary is UTG with 8s, Qs.
Actuary calls, UTG+1 calls, 1 fold, BB calls, Actuary calls, UTG+1 calls.

Flop: (12.50 SB) 4s, Th, 3s (6 players)
BB checks, Actuary checks, UTG+1 checks, MP2 bets, BB folds, Actuary calls, UTG+1 folds, MP2 calls, MP3 calls.

(btw: was going to c/r for value..but not after the 3-bet...I"m not really sure what that means..except I now didn't feel like investing anymore $$ than necessary before seeing if the spade came and if the board pairs)

Turn: (12.25 BB) Jc (4 players)
Actuary checks, MP2 checks, MP3 checks, Button bets, Actuary calls.....

Is Q/8s really considered "close" under the gun?

according to SSHE:

EP: QJs - Q9s.... limp.

in games where 6-8 see the flop..
over 6 regularly is awefully high for the games I play..I find 5 to the flop as a decent cutoff.

Fold preflop.

Seriously.

I dunno if I could call that flop.

With this much flop action, neither your flush outs, nor your Queen outs, are necessarily all that great. If you discount the 12 combined outs to 9, this isn't a great call.

I won't get into the PF call except to say that, the looser the Sklansky starting standards you play (Especially OOP), the stronger the post-flop player you need to be.

Just my .02

i limp this UTG in loose/aggro games, but it IS pretty close.

i think folding the flop is wrong.

nice hand.

aseem

Aseem. I'd be more comfortable with this flop call if we were closing the action. I think it's a close decision as is, and, if capped, it wouldn't be that great.

i would do the capping myself if doing so didn't sacrifice being able to see if anyone else capped.

e.g. PFR bet, call, call, we raise, PFR three-bets, call, call, we cap.

we have a flush draw, and closing the action or not, we're getting 3-to-1 on our money when we're 2-to-1 in equity. even if there is a set out there, we still have 3-to-1 in equity, so a call is still good.

really, if the cap was five bets, i think i would four-bet it here, since i can still see if anyone caps.

aseem

ok maybe im just to tight a player...but i will rarely make a call with ax suited utg...and even then it needs to be around a9, a8 or so...that being said...q8 utg i think is an easy fold...sklanksey may recommend playin it but thats just to loose for me

actuary this is totally not a dig at you b/c not long ago i was in ur shoes...but heres an observation i made about my play...when i first started i played a lot of the close hands like u are doing..and i found i was losing money with them mainly b/c of lack of expereince, lack of skill....i tightened up my game and allowed myself to grow in skill before i started loosening up to play some ax suited and kx suiteds and all...so thats my advice for yah...play tighter and then look to loosen it up to a few moer hands once u are comfortable playing the limited hands u started with

I'm folding preflop and calling the turn.

I don't see a fold anywhere after the flop and I can't think of any good reasons to raise, so calling seems to be best.

Most of the time, I'm not even playing this hand from the button.

My win rate has increased substantially since:
1. going from a 17-18% VP$IP to 20-23% VP$IP (even in EP)
2. getting a better understanding of the value in chasing and/or fighting in big pots.

I would not say it's attributed to great post-flop skills...just better than most players in the pots I play. (thanks HH & PT)

I'm always amazed at the emphasis on pre-flop decisions on such close calls, close according to Miller.

If the flop was capped I'm putting 4 SB into a 28 SB pot - good for me.
Before Akishore said, I didn't know what my equity was versus a set...that would be good info to have because a set appeared quite likely.

Assem I like the thought of "not capping for info", although what more info do I need? Certainly I'm only playing for a flush now (or bd str8 surprise! :-) ) and a cap would not make me think the A/K is out. How would you read a cap?

thanks for all the input.

Clearly we have at least 2 distinct camps here. Instead of getting all defensive, now, I try to learn from both while understanding what will make the most $$$$ in the long run for me. It's not that I disregard what Guinevera says, but I don't play that way. Screech and Aseem relate more to a looser style that seeks big pots against weak opponents.

Heh.

You didn't get my name, or style of play right 8)

sorry about the name..I was in edit mode and couldn't see the other posts (lazy).

I assumed you don't play as loose/aggressive due to the abundance of "folds" I see. It could be lack of memory or selection.

What is your style?

I play whatever style is most effective for the table.

All styles are useful depending on who you are sitting with.

I think if we had a couple of bettors/callers and then all of the late crazyness, then capping works awesome, but since all of the betting/raising/reraising came in succession, I do think that calling works best. then again, I might just lead this flop so that I can put more bets in on it

you think in a loose table with most would-be limpers still calling 2-cold..this is an easy fold pre-flop?

I just disagree that its clear. It's close...do you all think there a cliff in the Miller tables?

Damn I hate the emphasis on pre-flop, when my post flop needs the most attention (in general at least, maybe this hand the rest is clearer than I realized)

Guin: well if yuo change styles for tables..and you never change it enough to call Q8s for EP, then I stand by my statment that Aseem and Screech tend towrds a more open (loose game) pref-lop. Hopefully I'm not basterdizing their strategies also. lol.


edit: reason for not leading is I was looking to c/r. Figuring the pf raiser would lead out. I did not want to lead out and have the field face two cold. This is a pot building hand, that will win 80%+ of the time when it hits (?) , imo.

I didn't read but the top 3 responses. But I limp Q8s in live games, I've done it at some 15/30 tables. The reason? Because there's 7 people to a flop and it's profitable if played correctly.

Preflop mistakes are minor, its all postflop.

And postflop mistakes magnify preflop errors. If you don't have a good grasp on postflop play, limping UTG is probably going to cost you money. If you don't understand the correct game conditions needed for the 'loose' PF calls, you're going to cost yourself money.

Actuary has a good grip on these things - check to the PF raiser to trap field...equity...

Aseem and Kdawg give good reasons as to why not capping was the right play. Folding the flop is insane.

okay, i've been thinking about the preflop decision a lot more.

1. HPFAP says that in loose games where a lot of people call and not many people bet/raise, hands like J9s (which makes Q8s very similar) profitable to limp UTG.

2. this game is obviously pretty loose.

3. however, this game seems aggressive. i also stated that i limp Q8s UTG in loose/aggro games.

so what's the discrepency about? before i get to that, let's discuss just why limping Q8s is okay UTG *** if it's okay to limp it on the button ***.

well, SSHE has a great section on why you can play loosely in early position in loose games (at least as loose as you play middle position) because some of the advantages you normally gain with position are still available to you to some extent in loose/aggro games:

1. you can checkraise for value or to protect, and similarly, you can lead out for value or to protect. checkraising is also MUCH more effective in early position than any other position.

2. one thing about position in tight games is that you can see just how loose a HAND is before you decide to limp or fold a hand like Q8s. in a loose game, aggressive or passive, you can be fairly confident that this hand will be just as loose as every other hand.

now, let's discuss passiveness versus aggressiveness.

in HPFAP, sklansky describes J9s and other similar hands as being profitable in early position in PASSIVE games because you can see a cheap flop (these hands need to see a flop cheaply since they don't hit profitable draws/hands very often).

now, i will say that these hands are JUST as profitable in AGGRO games, maybe MORE SO, than they would be in a passive game, because of IMPLIED odds.

you sometimes pay one bet more preflop, but think about all the extra bets you make (implied odds) postflop because of the aggression.

sure, sometimes you only flop a gutshot and you don't have an equity edge, so you end up paying multiple bets chasing "profitably" (i.e. good pot odds) when your total effective odds for the whole hand are unprofitable.

however, a lot of times you flop a draw like this (a flush draw) or an open-ender, which IS a profitable draw to play (i.e. you have an equity edge), so you make so much with each bet and raise in these six-way flops and whatnot.

make sense?

i think this is obviously a close decision, but in a loose game where six- and seven-way flops are the norm (sometimes more), i limp Q8s UTG very regularly.

(i admit that in a live $3/$6 games in which eight-way and nine-way flops were the norm, i went so far as to limp 64s UTG. now, THAT might not be so profitable, and i won't put up a big fight about it. :-) )

aseem

Aseem,

The reason Q8s does not play well in aggressive games is because you will usually not get the proper odds to draw to your gutshot postflop, with a few bets and raises.

Q8 is worse than Q9 because it cannot flop an OESD. Every straight draw it flops will be a gutshot. I realize you will usually have other draws working for you with this hand, but it's really hard to play when you're not closing the action and only have a few weak draws to go with your hand.

I like your point about implied odds. But remember, in these PF decisions, implied odds is related to the ratio of the expected final pot size to the amount put in PF. If we put in 2-bets PF, we would have to expect the final pot size to at least double for our implied odds to get better.

It would seem then that the ideal conditions for implied odds would be loose, with not too much raising PF, and then loose-aggressive post flop. But this seems to cut down on your postflop odds enormously. When you flop a lone gutshot, or a pair with a bd flush draw, it would be hard to continue. Still, if you flop a strong draw (gutshot + straight), your hand would have enormous value, and you will get paid off nicely when your draws come in. It seems to me, some sort of balance needs to be reached. You cannot play these hands for many bets PF, and over aggressive postflop seems to hurt these hands.

I think the best type of games would be those that are loose-passive PF, but tend to pick up aggression slightly postflop. This ensures your implied odds are large, but the post flop action isn't too much that you may end up getting stuck with a weak draw for too many bets postflop.

screech, yes, that's a good point.

not to be nitpicky, but you flop double-gutted draws with Q8s, so it's not the case that you only flop gutshots. double-gutters are also profitable to chase, if not MORE profitable because of their deceptiveness.

it's not possible to know everything about a game to see if Q8s is profitable from an implied odds viewpoint, but i do feel that it's a lot closer than everyone is making it out to be.

for now, i'll keep limping it in my donkey games, but i AM pretty loose preflop with these hands. not sure if it's costing me money yet.

aseem

I did. I belly-busters. :-)

Just out of curiousity, what are your positional stats with hands like these (QTs, J9s, J8s, etc)?

I'm not playing these hands up front all that often (mainly because of my poor game selection), but I do seem to be losing money with about half these type of hands when I play them from later positions. I only have a small database right now, ~6000 hands, so I'm not too concerned about it yet.

"Those, a solid, almost mistake-free preflop strategy is critical to long-term success in small stakes hold'em." SSHE - p.45

read pg 11.
then, read it again.

pg 45 is tallking about far less marginal situations than this.
Calling raises w/ off suite weak broadway

I agree with what p. 45 is talking about but the point still remains that preflop is very important. My quote was in reference to what Jason said and not about this particular hand. I think that a sound preflop strategy makes postflop play so much easier.

I doubt it. Like Mike Caro said, one good player can play twice as many hands as another but still win about the same amount (since marginal hands generally go about 50-50). Of course a bad player playing twice as many hands is not going to go ~ 50-50 on those decisions.
Even though I agree with folding PF, I can't argue against much of what akishore reasons for limping. One thing I'm not sure about though. I'm not good with the math, but I'm not sure the implied odds are really there. In order to win this pot, you can reasonably assume only a straight or flush has a chance. And the straight draw will most often be a gutshot rather than a belly buster. But you'd also have to account for the fact that you can have neither the nut straight or nut flush, and you'll have many opponents chasing draws as well. Definitely once you're in and pick up the FD on the flop you can't go anywhere, and the gutshot from the turn just adds more for you. Seems like you're locked into betting a lot of money on a hand you can't be too confident of when 5 other guys made it to the river as well.

Don't like the preflop call.

Play on the flop and turn seems pretty standard. I also like just calling the 3 bet as not only does it give you information if someone caps but better sets you up for a check raise if your hand hits.

one thing i think a lot of people don't realize when talking about implied odds...

you don't have to HIT a flush or straight by showdown X amount of times to make it profitable.

remember that just flopping a good DRAW is usually profitable, since you have an equity edge.

e.g. when you flop a flush draw in a four-way pot, you can cap it since you have an edge. you make money on every bet/raise. similar with open-ended draws.

aseem

I freely admit that I have only a basic understanding of equity edges - I'm a very results oriented person, which makes it hard to truly comprehend 'being ahead' as 'won'.
But don't you have to win a certain number of times? The only way to make money is to win this hand eventually right?

read SSHE. :-)

you can flop top two pair and not WIN the hand but you are still making money on every bet and raise right?

similar idea with a flush draw. you win more than your fair share of the pot, so you make money on every bet/raise.

aseem

Yeah basically it means that you will win the hand X% of the time. Don't worry about whether or not it hits this time. Just know in the long run that it will and exploit your statistical advantage.

actually, it was HU on river

That I understand. If you win the hand 1 out of every 5 times, you cover all your betting+ make money. But that's not what akishore is saying (I don't think).


Really? In that big of a pot I figured almost every one would stick around to the river.