|
Title: Queens Post by: RED-DOG on January 22, 2012, 04:41:05 PM €190 + 10, 30k gteed. No solid reads on utg, seat 6 is loose aggressive.
Blinds 100/200. utg bets 500 from 4.5k. seat 6 makes it 800 from 4.2k. We are in the bb playing 6k. We have QQ. Our move? Title: Re: Queens Post by: doubleup on January 22, 2012, 04:55:42 PM Unless his min 3 bet means a monster I'd just push. omlettes egg-breaking etc Title: Re: Queens Post by: RED-DOG on January 22, 2012, 05:02:59 PM Unless his min 3 bet means a monster I'd just push. omlettes egg-breaking etc So your saying if he has a monster, don't push? Title: Re: Queens Post by: pleno1 on January 22, 2012, 05:03:03 PM jam, its 22bigs effective and even though they have tight ranges our hand still plays well vs them and we can profitably shove, although I'm not super happy about it.
Title: Re: Queens Post by: doubleup on January 22, 2012, 05:10:28 PM Unless his min 3 bet means a monster I'd just push. omlettes egg-breaking etc So your saying if he has a monster, don't push? well obv if you know that just fold :) I was only raising the possibility that the min 3 bet might be significant. If it isn't just push. Title: Re: Queens Post by: RED-DOG on January 22, 2012, 05:12:21 PM Unless his min 3 bet means a monster I'd just push. omlettes egg-breaking etc So your saying if he has a monster, don't push? well obv if you know that just fold :) I was only raising the possibility that the min 3 bet might be significant. If it isn't just push. Lol I knew what you meant. I was worried that the min raise was significant too. Title: Re: Queens Post by: pleno1 on January 22, 2012, 05:13:45 PM Unless his min 3 bet means a monster I'd just push. omlettes egg-breaking etc So your saying if he has a monster, don't push? a monster to a lag with 20 bigs is 9's+ tho that we do well vs well obv if you know that just fold :) I was only raising the possibility that the min 3 bet might be significant. If it isn't just push. Title: Re: Queens Post by: jezza777 on January 22, 2012, 07:20:18 PM we can't call?
Title: Re: Queens Post by: jezza777 on January 22, 2012, 07:24:40 PM I hate pushing here
Title: Re: Queens Post by: Junior Senior on January 22, 2012, 08:06:59 PM shove 'em in
Title: Re: Queens Post by: RED-DOG on January 23, 2012, 12:53:58 AM So we call. Utg shoves, seat 6 shoves.
? Title: Re: Queens Post by: jgcblack on January 23, 2012, 01:31:04 AM Happily fold and thank our lucky stars we were a clever enough boy to avoid the utg+1's now obvious monster??
We can't be good vs his range here unless he's a sicko.. i mean its not like he's ever got 10's or J's so what do we beat? oh wait he could have AK!!!! (they've always got AK) :P Utg could be light, since you present the best squeeze spot here.. he might even expect (read hope) utg+1 to fold QQ down.. sometimes AK.. Title: Re: Queens Post by: SuuPRlim on January 23, 2012, 03:45:58 AM calling pre flop far and away worst option I'm afraid to say Mr. Dog
Jamming and folding both seem not too unreasonable, I'd jam almost always personally but can't see a fold being terrible, I think calling is bad though. Title: Re: Queens Post by: Junior Senior on January 23, 2012, 11:01:23 AM As played its an obvious fold. Calling pre here though is gonna get you in too many messes. You're better off jamming hard like Bob Marley
Title: Re: Queens Post by: RED-DOG on January 23, 2012, 12:06:27 PM Yes. Jamming was the best option, followed by folding.
Calling was the worst move, but that's what I did. Then I folded when they both jammed. UTG had 10s, seat 6 had 8s. Queens would have stood up. Title: Re: Queens Post by: Woodsey on January 23, 2012, 12:22:23 PM Yes. Jamming was the best option, followed by folding. Calling was the worst move, but that's what I did. Then I folded when they both jammed. UTG had 10s, seat 6 had 8s. Queens would have stood up. Gotta be honest those little reraises confuse the hell out of me, I'm not usually folding queens that short anyway so I'd just stick it in. Sometimes you get it right, other times not, meh....... Title: Re: Queens Post by: BulldozerD on January 23, 2012, 01:01:43 PM With villain as described I would always jam
Title: Re: Queens Post by: bobby1 on January 23, 2012, 01:11:24 PM Yes. Jamming was the best option, followed by folding. Calling was the worst move, but that's what I did. Then I folded when they both jammed. UTG had 10s, seat 6 had 8s. Queens would have stood up. As the consensus seems to be jam or fold do you think it would have been different if you had been say 8 tabling a load of multi's like some of the guys do? Is the mindset in that situation that you are more likely to jam or gamble a little more with the hope that you are going to get it right and run up a stack on some tables and accept that you will bust on others? If the opposite is the case and this is the one tournament you are going to play that day do you think it makes it harder to jam in that spot, if it is a flip between jamming or folding? That might be a bit of a ramble but I have actually got the builders in so its a bit of a rush. Title: Re: Queens Post by: George2Loose on January 23, 2012, 02:56:34 PM Think Pleno summed it up best. With your stack size I'm very rarely folding Queens or Jacks in this spot unless I have a solid read that the min raise is aces (ie notes on opponent)
Title: Re: Queens Post by: RED-DOG on January 23, 2012, 03:21:48 PM My thinking.
I didn't like the early position opening bet. I was worried about the min raise from the LAG. This is my most expensive buy in of the week. It's great value, lots of the players have got in on a satellite and therefore it's plays quite soft, especially in the earlier stages. I thought if I pushed in that spot I would get at least one caller and there was a good chance that I would either be crushed or racing. There is loads of play in this comp, and I like to see flops with these players. I don't want to give my what I see as my edge away cheaply. That being said, you guys were right, calling was the worst option. I should have pushed or folded. Title: Re: Queens Post by: bobby1 on January 23, 2012, 03:46:43 PM My thinking. I didn't like the early position opening bet. I was worried about the min raise from the LAG. This is my most expensive buy in of the week. It's great value, lots of the players have got in on a satellite and therefore it's plays quite soft, especially in the earlier stages. I thought if I pushed in that spot I would get at least one caller and there was a good chance that I would either be crushed or racing. There is loads of play in this comp, and I like to see flops with these players. I don't want to give my what I see as my edge away cheaply. That being said, you guys were right, calling was the worst option. I should have pushed or folded. Did you cash Tom? Title: Re: Queens Post by: RED-DOG on January 23, 2012, 04:33:31 PM My thinking. I didn't like the early position opening bet. I was worried about the min raise from the LAG. This is my most expensive buy in of the week. It's great value, lots of the players have got in on a satellite and therefore it's plays quite soft, especially in the earlier stages. I thought if I pushed in that spot I would get at least one caller and there was a good chance that I would either be crushed or racing. There is loads of play in this comp, and I like to see flops with these players. I don't want to give my what I see as my edge away cheaply. That being said, you guys were right, calling was the worst option. I should have pushed or folded. Did you cash Tom? No I didn't Phil. I got it in good when I turned the nut flush v a set of 4s but the board paired on the end. Title: Re: Queens Post by: bobby1 on January 23, 2012, 05:59:55 PM My thinking. I didn't like the early position opening bet. I was worried about the min raise from the LAG. This is my most expensive buy in of the week. It's great value, lots of the players have got in on a satellite and therefore it's plays quite soft, especially in the earlier stages. I thought if I pushed in that spot I would get at least one caller and there was a good chance that I would either be crushed or racing. There is loads of play in this comp, and I like to see flops with these players. I don't want to give my what I see as my edge away cheaply. That being said, you guys were right, calling was the worst option. I should have pushed or folded. Did you cash Tom? No I didn't Phil. I got it in good when I turned the nut flush v a set of 4s but the board paired on the end. Bugger, I was hoping for a cash. Is that a comp on Laddies? Title: Re: Queens Post by: SuuPRlim on January 23, 2012, 06:04:32 PM My thinking. I didn't like the early position opening bet. I was worried about the min raise from the LAG. This is my most expensive buy in of the week. It's great value, lots of the players have got in on a satellite and therefore it's plays quite soft, especially in the earlier stages. I thought if I pushed in that spot I would get at least one caller and there was a good chance that I would either be crushed or racing. There is loads of play in this comp, and I like to see flops with these players. I don't want to give my what I see as my edge away cheaply. That being said, you guys were right, calling was the worst option. I should have pushed or folded. so you're set mining? If this is your thinking then the conservative option is to fold and it wouldn't be terrible. Title: Re: Queens Post by: RED-DOG on January 23, 2012, 07:15:18 PM It happened again. This time, I took your advice.
(http://i43.tinypic.com/11m8e3n.jpg) Title: Re: Queens Post by: tikay on January 23, 2012, 07:28:35 PM Outrageous binkage. Title: Re: Queens Post by: RED-DOG on January 23, 2012, 07:31:47 PM Outrageous binkage. These guys know what they're talking about though. PHAFTW 8) Title: Re: Queens Post by: bobby1 on January 23, 2012, 07:34:21 PM hee hee, nice.
Title: Re: Queens Post by: RED-DOG on January 23, 2012, 08:58:18 PM I like queens...
(http://i40.tinypic.com/wcjyfc.jpg) Title: Re: Queens Post by: SuuPRlim on January 23, 2012, 09:13:30 PM cmon Tom, GIQ some of us doing the farm over here.
Title: Re: Queens Post by: RED-DOG on January 23, 2012, 09:50:16 PM cmon Tom, GIQ some of us doing the farm over here. Dave, you're a jinx. Title: Re: Queens Post by: kinboshi on January 23, 2012, 10:26:40 PM Tom has a thing for closet queens. He has a thing for Doobs too.
Title: Re: Queens Post by: mulhuzz on January 23, 2012, 10:27:36 PM Tom has a thing for closet queens. He has a thing for Doobs too. wpwp Title: Re: Queens Post by: RED-DOG on January 23, 2012, 10:38:38 PM Tom has a thing for closet queens. He has a thing for Doobs too. It's the thing that Doobs has that worries me. |