Please review & critique this KQs hand

Only 40 hands on the villain. Nothing spectacular on how he plays springs to mind. 15/10. 1st time I saw his 3bet so I'm guessing he has AJs+ or JJ+

Full Tilt - $0.05 NL - Holdem - 9 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 3

LP: $5.00
CO: $5.55
BTN: $3.94
SB: $8.89
BB: $5.36
UTG: $2.08
Hero (UTG+1): $11.61
MP: $1.02
MP+1: $2.93

SB posts SB $0.02, BB posts BB $0.05

Pre Flop: ($0.07) Hero has Q:spade: K:spade:

fold, Hero raises to $0.15, fold, MP+1 calls $0.15, fold, CO raises to $0.50, fold, fold, fold, Hero calls $0.35, fold

I don't normally play this hand unless I'm in position but wanted to mix it up. It's the first suited connector I've played at the table other than a blind steal 67s (won so nobody saw it). For the 800 hand session I played 14 suited connectors having been dealt 26. Only 2 were played before CO (this being 1).

I call his raise to see the flop as I had good odds and it can flop well.

Flop: ($1.22, 2 players) 9:club: 4:heart: T:club:
Hero checks, CO bets $0.20, Hero calls $0.20

I was getting pretty good odds to call (but I do think one of my leaks is hanging around too long). I took a while to call. I had the gs draw but wasn't counting on it (4 might not have been so with a set of JJ or AJ in his range). In hindsight perhaps calling was dumb as AQ or AK would dominate me.

Still the bet was an odd size, nearly a feeler bet or a blocker. I thought about a re-raise but there were enough set or high pair options for his range I figured that would just be dumb as I'd be stuffed if he re-raised me back and I'm oop.. I'm slow on these things!

Turn: ($1.62, 2 players) J:heart:
Hero checks, CO bets $1.62, Hero raises to $4.53, fold

This was a gem for me. With his bet, I thought he'd either hit a set with JJ or TPTK. I also thought his bet showed strength. Given the bet size I discounted a flush draw but when he folded, it is quite possible he was chasing one or had AJ.

Any comments of how I might have got his stack here? Did I stuff up the turn bet?

The pot was $3.24 with his bet so with 1 card to go would a min raise have been a better option?

I know we shouldn't show results here but given there's no river it would have been obvious. I'm after critique on my thoughts & particularly the last bet.

Thanks in advance

With his weird turn bet he is left with 3.20$. Why raise him so big? Minraise would be enough, and you can still make a decent bet on a river for the rest of his stack.

You could've call a turn and expect another bet on the river (possibly for a most of his stack), but its a bit of a longshot since you don't know his tendencies.

Fold preflop

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moradis

Pre Flop: ($0.07) Hero has Q:spade: K:spade:

fold, Hero raises to $0.15, fold, MP+1 calls $0.15, fold, CO raises to $0.50, fold, fold, fold, Hero calls $0.35, fold

I don't normally play this hand unless I'm in position but wanted to mix it up.

I call his raise to see the flop as I had good odds and it can flop well.

---

Wanting to mix it up isn't enough of a reason to call, his range [AQ+,JJ+] crushes you.

You need to be much deeper and have a read that he pays off with one pair in 3bet pots to call here.

As played just jam the turn since he's unlikely to fold after that sizing. Min raising or raising small just looks very strong.

Even in 6m I'm not playing KQs OOP vs a 3bet. In FR I'm not even playing KQs unless I am in the CO or better. What are you hoping to see flop??

Fold pre, man. I can see playing KQ:s: ip in a limped or raised pot, but not 3bet. His range is crushing yours and you're oop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carroters

Fold preflop

---

Yup. Opening UTG+1 with KQs is marginal to start with, I tend to open fold this unless the table is bad, though I'm a nit, I don't necessarily think the open is bad, but definitely fold to the 3bet.

i would prefer opening with KQs to opening with 22-66

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by philly and the phanatics

i would prefer opening with KQs to opening with 22-66

---

I prefer tea to coffee. I think KQs and 66 are both marginal opens from UTG+1, it depends a great deal on a) table quality b) stack sizes c) position of fish, and, most importantly, d) how confident you feel with sets/top pair hands oop.
I reckon I fold this spot something like 50-60% of the time, whereas I'll open 66 UTG+1 like 95% of the time, assuming UTG folds. I'm raising in this position JJ+ AK (and maybe AQ) for value, any other hand I raise here is for balance or a bluff, and I'd much rather be oop with a set than with top pair.

opening preflop is fine. fold to the 3bet. as played flop and turn look good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jyms

Even in 6m I'm not playing KQs OOP vs a 3bet. In FR I'm not even playing KQs unless I am in the CO or better.

---

You are folding KQs in the HJ?
I might or might not open it utg at FR, but it's certainly profitable in MP.
Definitely fold to the 3b tho. This isn't close and nobody will disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jyms

Even in 6m I'm not playing KQs OOP vs a 3bet. In FR I'm not even playing KQs unless I am in the CO or better. What are you hoping to see flop??

---

you honestly open-muck KQs in the hijack seat?

edit: oskar beat me to it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I prefer tea to coffee. I think KQs and 66 are both marginal opens from UTG+1, it depends a great deal on a) table quality b) stack sizes c) position of fish, and, most importantly, d) how confident you feel with sets/top pair hands oop.
I reckon I fold this spot something like 50-60% of the time, whereas I'll open 66 UTG+1 like 95% of the time, assuming UTG folds. I'm raising in this position JJ+ AK (and maybe AQ) for value, any other hand I raise here is for balance or a bluff, and I'd much rather be oop with a set than with top pair.

---

a) What's table quality?
b) How do stack sizes directly relate to comparing the EV of KQs and 66? i'm pretty sure there are other factors that stack sizes are codependent with here.
c)position of fish? as in we're making a loose open to isolate a weaker player for value? obv more +EV if they're in the blinds and we'll have position on them no matter what we have. both are obv very +EV when we have position on the fish, but KQs is probably going to play a lot better OOP vs the fish than 66.
d) I'm not sure how this doesn't apply to like any hand we open from EP.

Whats the point of doing something that's +EV 50-60% of the time? Do you not like money the other 40-50% of the time? or are you only opening it 50-60% of the time because you think it's -EV and you're wanting to gamb00l? once again i have no idea why you open 66 95% of the time lolo. So... if you open AJ or TT here it's as a bluff or.....balance(??????????) wat
also do you have any other plans besides flopping sets oop when you open 66 here?

Ok,

a) table quality refers to the dynamics, for example, are we likely to get 3bet, folds or calls? Poor table quality, imo, means people are likely to have no respect for an utg raise and call junk like ace rag. Strong table quality means we'll either take it down pre or get 3bet.

b) I should be clearer. I'm looking at the stacks to our right.

c) position of fish is always important to me, more so when I'm raising from ep. I would like the fish to be on the blinds ideally. And yes, because ev will be higher if we have position.

d) fair point.

As for why I sometimes play KQs and sometimes fold it in this spot, it depends how I feel, and depends on table dynamics. I do not have a static hand selection that demands I raise xx and fold xx, the consequence of this is some hands are both fold and raise hands in certain positions. KQ is one of them. I'm never limping this spot, but I can raise or fold, depending on the factors listed, and of course many other factors, such as if I'm trying to roll a spliff. I don't see anything wrong with sometimes raising and sometimes folding. It's not that I don't like money, it's that I don't consider it a great hand, just average.

And my plan for 66 when it misses the flop? Depends who called.

Oh, and I guess TT can be added to my value range UTG. AJ gets folded more often than KQ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I prefer tea to coffee. I think KQs and 66 are both marginal opens from UTG+1, it depends a great deal on a) table quality b) stack sizes c) position of fish, and, most importantly, d) how confident you feel with sets/top pair hands oop.
I reckon I fold this spot something like 50-60% of the time, whereas I'll open 66 UTG+1 like 95% of the time, assuming UTG folds. I'm raising in this position JJ+ AK (and maybe AQ) for value, any other hand I raise here is for balance or a bluff, and I'd much rather be oop with a set than with top pair.

---

when you open early, people are calling to beat our perceived range- big pairs....so they are only going to stack off with 2pair or better...sadly 2 pair is the only thing we beat and we are often behind flushes/straights/higher sets. Also when you miss you lack the equity to continue agression, whereas you can profitably semibluff with KQs on the flop and turn. KQs usually makes the best flush/ALWAYS makes the best straight...in a full ring game you are getting coolered by 88 while KQs is coolering 87s.

This is NOT my original thought and is stolen from somewhere, but basically this sums up my opinions on the two hands.

Well, I certainly don't like 66 from EP. I put it in my range from MP2 usually. See Philly for the reason. In terms of calling the 3bet, the limper behind me was very loose and I had (at that point) had folded a few 3 bets from MP pot opens up to that point. I was thinking it could be a squeeze / isolation but with so few hands I couldn't tell.

The PF call was literally to see the flop, look to see if a straight/flush was on & re-evaluate from there. The PF call was marginal. It worked out for me I guess. I don't do it often & my fold to 3 bet is pretty high as is. I usually only call with JJ+, or AJs+ (depending on size, min vs. pot size raise).

I'll rack up PF calling 3bet oop with KQs as a -'ve EV play & try to cull another leak from my game.

Thanks all for the feedback.

I think one apsect of opening 66 is that I can call a 3bet with it a lot more often than I can KQs. Also, KQ doesn't always make the nuts straight. Board 9TJQ hero has KQ villain has AK oops.

But, I'm gonna take in these opinions, because I know I'm not really that good at poker, and many people who I suspect are way better are telling me I should prefer KQ to 66 in ep.

I realise that when I open 66, I'm gonna fold it something like 3 times in 5, but so long as the 2 times in 5 I win, I'm making more than when it folds or loses at showdown, then all is good. Last time I checked PT, this was true. 66 makes me money in all positions. KQ doesn't. Maybe I'm playing KQ badly, but not 66. That's something I need to look at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I think one apsect of opening 66 is that I can call a 3bet with it a lot more often than I can KQs. Also, KQ doesn't always make the nuts straight. Board 9TJQ hero has KQ villain has AK oops.

---

you open it so you can play more 3bet pots OOP fit or fold? doesnt sound like a smart plan...and as for the straights im obviously talking about ones where we have to use both cards -___-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I think one apsect of opening 66 is that I can call a 3bet with it a lot more often than I can KQs.

---

Hmm, well, not really. Since there is like 1:10 chance to hit the set on flop, and lets say you opened for 3bb and villain 3bet you for 9bb, villain would need to have 180bb stack to pay you off. Since the usual stack size is 100bb, you would be losing money even if your oponnent pays you off every time you hit the set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nekrogovner

Hmm, well, not really. Since there is like 1:10 chance to hit the set on flop, and lets say you opened for 3bb and villain 3bet you for 9bb, villain would need to have 180bb stack to pay you off. Since the usual stack size is 100bb, you would be losing money even if your oponnent pays you off every time you hit the set.

---

your math is totally wrong.

chance to hit a set on flop is ~1:8, when you get a 3bet from 3bb open to 9bb you have to call 6bb more. pot is already 1,5bb blinds + 3bb open + 9 bb 3bet= 13,5bb so if villain has a stack of at least 66 bb left you have to call 6bb in order to win 78,5 getting like this 13:1implied odds with 8:1 odds to hit. to me that is a + EV call. some say you need 15:1 implieds odds to call to compensate set over set and times when you dont get paid post. for me 13:1 implied is enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nekrogovner

Hmm, well, not really. Since there is like 1:10 chance to hit the set on flop, and lets say you opened for 3bb and villain 3bet you for 9bb, villain would need to have 180bb stack to pay you off. Since the usual stack size is 100bb, you would be losing money even if your oponnent pays you off every time you hit the set.

---

Erm, wat? Let's just be clear, if I open 66 from UTG and then face a 3bet, I'm not blindly calling every time, I then look at stacks. Also, your maths is fucked. If I raise 3bb, villain 3bets to 9bb, I have to call 6bb to see a flop. I need around 14:1 implied odds to make this call, depending on villain (less if he can't fold top pair). 15x6=90. I need villain to have 90bb stack left to make the call.

Philly, your points are more logical, I'll take them in.

Missed razvan's post, glad I'm not the only one who thinks the maths is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razvan729

your math is totally wrong.

chance to hit a set on flop is ~1:8, when you get a 3bet from 3bb open to 9bb you have to call 6bb more. pot is already 1,5bb blinds + 3bb open + 9 bb 3bet= 13,5bb so if villain has a stack of at least 66 bb left you have to call 6bb in order to win 78,5 getting like this 13:1implied odds with 8:1 odds to hit. to me that is a + EV call. some say you need 15:1 implieds odds to call to compensate set over set and times when you dont get paid post. for me 13:1 implied is enough.

---

Doh, apologies, donk is a donk. :wall:

I have read that information somewhere, and sort of memorized it not giving it much thought. However, I think that article also implied that you have to win much more in order to compensate for, like you said set over set, and various other flushes/straights, stuff that kills you.

Gonna close my mouth now, until my brain can verify what I'm saying. :drunk:

That 10:1 that you're thinking about is probably what Sklanski wrote in theory of poker for hitting a gutshot.

@ Razvan - great post on the maths :). I agree: the 15:1 for set over set is a bit excessive. It's like 0.1% chance of that, and while it is possible (happened to me the other night - 1st time - guess my cherry's popped) it's extremely rare. I run about 11:1-ish to compensate for the times I don't get paid post flop. However if the dude's a known drooler, then I'll run right at 8:1 or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shotglass

That 10:1 that you're thinking about is probably what Sklanski wrote in theory of poker for hitting a gutshot.

@ Razvan - great post on the maths :). I agree: the 15:1 for set over set is a bit excessive. It's like 0.1% chance of that, and while it is possible (happened to me the other night - 1st time - guess my cherry's popped) it's extremely rare. I run about 11:1-ish to compensate for the times I don't get paid post flop. However if the dude's a known drooler, then I'll run right at 8:1 or so.

---

Nah, that 10:1 is more like me rounding 0.12 to 0.10, which is a huge error, as I can see now. :whistle:

Ow ye, btw I found now what I was talking about. Its called CALL 20 rule. So, if you open raise for 3bb, and villain raises to 9bb, so you need to call 6bb more, and villain needs to have 6x20 -13.5 = 106.5 bbs left in stack to make your call profitable. It is much more then you need to break even, but its made so it covers for all that times you won't get paid off, so for example, with CALL 20 rule you could get paid off something like every second time to break even.

Its actually a bit rigorous version of CALL 15 rule (where you need 15:1 implied odds like Razvan was saying).


Btw, since I play mostly rush atm, I run into set over set situations like at least once in a hour, so I def prefer that both I and villain have a full stacks.

Assuming that you can stack the villain EVERY SINGLE TIME you hit your set. OOP - which means you need to c/r, bet, bet to get it in.
Because that just doesn't happen, 15:1 is a conservative estimate, and oop it should be even more. esp if villain can narrow your range down to exactly that. Cos everything else is either 4b or fold, amirite?
Calling oop to setmine is not going to be profitable most of the time.
Don't forget that you don't have 100% equity with a set and that your opponents range isn't going to be KK+ either.

:hmm: meethinks I need to do a review on my database, cause I could be behind the curve running the odds like I have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shotglass

That 10:1 that you're thinking about is probably what Sklanski wrote in theory of poker for hitting a gutshot.

@ Razvan - great post on the maths :). I agree: the 15:1 for set over set is a bit excessive. It's like 0.1% chance of that, and while it is possible (happened to me the other night - 1st time - guess my cherry's popped) it's extremely rare. I run about 11:1-ish to compensate for the times I don't get paid post flop. However if the dude's a known drooler, then I'll run right at 8:1 or so.

---

sounds like you're setmining wayyyyy too much to me.

Kinda thought that myself after I read Oskar's post. Will be doing a review of sets in my db this weekend to see where I'm at.

i open all suited broadways from every position. i would probably fold pre and the rest of the hand is obviously fine

@ bikes - Doesn't opening suited broadways from UTG add a bunch of variance to your game, or do you get away from it early when facing aggression?