This is the beginning of a multi-street What’s Your Play? Unlike many of these, it’s not an actual hand I played, but it illustrates some common situations that I think a lot of people get wrong.
You’re at a 9-handed $2/$5 NLHE table with $600 effective stacks. UTG is very loose, especially pre-flop, and the whole table is salivating over him. UTG+2 is tight-aggressive bordering on nitty.
UTG limps for $5. UTG2 raises to $20, and the action folds to you in the CO with Qs Ts. What’s your play and why?
I call. But we are missing some information, namely are there squeezers behind us. Under most conditions in the blinds and on the button, I will be calling here. The value of having UTG calling and playing a single-raised pot in position is high even though we are in trouble against UTG+2’s range. As stacks shallow or as the isolation exceeds $20 we have arguments for folding, but at present I am not a fan of taking that route.
I would call. We could consider 3betting and making this a Brokos “hand that isn’t quite good enough to call”. Benefits of three-betting would be the increased chance of buying the button and of having initiative on the flop (and we can easily fold to a 4bet or shut down if another player cold-calls). But this would also often cause UTG to fold, and with our current stack size, I think we would prefer to play this hand in a single-raised pot to maximize our positional advantage post-flop. Our hand also plays well multi-way so we don’t mind if the blinds call (obv we hope button folds so we can have absolute position). Just read Gareth’s post and he makes an excellent point about squeezers, we would be in a pretty yucky spot if someone 3bet here.
I would normally be calling here. UTG2 definitely has a pretty small range for making it even $20 here, but we have position, a hand that can flop well in a multiway pot, and a decent amount of money behind with a very weak player likely to be involved in the pot with us. As Gareth points out, having players who are capable of squeezing behind us with marginal holdings could be problematic, but with no specific knowledge of the players behind us I would anticipate that this doesn’t characterize most 2/5 players (perhaps a dangerous assumption?)
I would 3bet here.
Given the description of the UTG player, and the fact that he limped UTG, this sort of player usually has some sort of ‘pretty’ hand they want to see the flop with.
Hence I would want to 3bet to an amount I think the UTG would still call based on previous hands.
3betting here is for the purpose of isolation and to seize the betting initiative.
Also, this can help us to bloat the pot in position so that we can get stacks in on a favourable board.
The UTG player is also described as looser preflop and hence it seems profitable to build the pot preflop and take it down on the flop with a bet which the UTG should usually miss.
Otherwise, we can always play a pot in position, checking to take free cards and bluffing/valuebetting different overcards depending on our read on how lightly UTG calls postflop.
The problem with 3betting is that the remaining players or the TAGnit may 4bet us if they think we are 3betting light, depending on our table image.
The TAGnit may also flat the 3bet since he is closing action and we may have to play a pot multiway.
Our 3bet may also have the small chance of getting the UTG to fold and the TAGnit to call, but depending on the board texture, this may be profitable as well as the TAGnit should have a tighter 3bet flatting range and most of that range would consist of 1 pair hands by the river, which we can make the TAGnit uncomfortable calling off stacks for on favourable board textures.
Flatting in the CO here can be considered but this would encourage the calling train or light 3bets from the remaining players and our hand is not going to hit the board that often enough that we can play for stacks in a multiway pot anyway.
Sorry about the quality of the post by the way haha.
I’m on the way to work in the train and im on my mobile phone so I don’t think I phrased some of my arguments properly nor justified some aspects of the benefits of postflop play against a TAGnit and a loose passive player in a 3bet pot well enough.
So based on descriptions and action so far, I’m going to put UTG’s range somewhere close to our holdings with majority of them lower than ours. I’ll put UGT+2’s range higher than ours, and may easily have our holdings dominated. I suppose this depends on my experience at the table as to how loose UTG actually is, does he call preflop raises after limping pre? does he call 3-bets after limping pre? How much money might he actually call preflop after he’s initially “committed” some chips? if I see him regularly calling the $20 and also calling a 3-bet than my plan is to 3bet to about $45 hoping to keep UTG in the hand playing for more money. While UTG+2 is tighter/nitty I don’t feel like he’ll likely fold to a pre-3-bet too often, however the times he does fold along with the times he calls his range is at least capped I think we can take advantage of our uncapped range against him in position. The ultimate hope is to have UTG+2 drop out at some point and probably get some nice value from UTG on later streets. If UTG+2 4-bets we can fold or call depending on the amount/situation…
I call. But we are missing some information, namely are there squeezers behind us. Under most conditions in the blinds and on the button, I will be calling here. The value of having UTG calling and playing a single-raised pot in position is high even though we are in trouble against UTG+2′s range. As stacks shallow or as the isolation exceeds $20 we have arguments for folding, but at present I am not a fan of taking that route.
In other words, what Gareth said.
I think calling and folding are both acceptable plays here. The more aggressive the players are to my left, the better folding looks.
Raising is my least favorite option. Why three bet a nitty-ish player and risk facing his 4bet (that we’d probably have to fold to) when we have position postflop?
Plus, by flatting his raise we keep a very deep SPR that will come in handy if we flop a nice draw.
It can be a comfortable fold a lot of the time. We have a v. nice speculative hand, but UTG+2 makes the decision easy for us given he is a nitty TAG, his range has us crushed so much of the time (you’d have to be concerned about calling his c-bet on a T or Q high flop).
Next best option: I’d prefer to call than to 3-bet raise again given nitty opener and possibility of having to fold to a 4-bet. Going to the flop with what is likely to be a multi-way situation with QTs is pretty good – and Andrew has pointed out than the whole table wants to play pots with UTG so we could hopefully assume a decent multiway pot is pending. If the button or blinds can squeeze often (as pointed out by Gareth), then it’s back to a fold.
If there was no open raise from UTG+2, I’d happily limp behind if the button and blinds (and whole game) was passive enough. Or I’d happily open raise to isolate the weak UTG player. But that didn’t happen here.
I think I’m calling. I don’t like a fold here, and a 3-bet seems like a spew against UTG+2’s description at this depth, which just isn’t all that deep. Give me 250bb+, and I think I’m raising.
We are not doing well vs the nits range, and a marginal favorite vs the UTG. So this hand is going to be all about position. I would say 3bet》fold》call.
What are we trying to accomplish here:
Heads up vs the UTG player, use position to force the nit out, build a pot. Because our implied odds aren’t that great against the nit if we flat (nits hate paying off flushes and straights) I would 3 bet here pretty small mainly to accomplish the following:
1. We exploit the UTG loose preflop play, since this is all we know, he could be tight on the flop so we might as well exploit him now.
2. We obfuscate our range vs the nit. He is going to put us on big pairs AK/AQ, and while he might 4 bet us it isn’t something nits do often enough that I care. If he calls at least we have narrowed his range.
3. We take the button and lessen the chance of a squeeze from the blinds.
I would 3bet to probably 45-50 and expect both to call. From here if the flop checks to us I am autobetting regardless of the texture, I expect 3betting and cbetting to turn an autoprofit vs nits and if called I am only barreling turns where we have good equity vs TP or overpairs. QT is a hand where we can usually get nits to fold better Q’s but only when we can clearly rep an overpair, so I am relying on the ability to exploit the nits tight calling range when I 3bet. I can’t do this when I flat. Also if we turn a good draw like spades or a straight draw we can usually make a large sized barrel that nits just never call without the nuts.
Back to the loose player. He is calling a 3 bet with a wide range so I expect my cbet to get a good amount of folds and my turn barrels with good equity vs the nits range are going to be absolutely crushing the UTG range.
Would love to see some made up flop and turn action to continue the discussion!
With 120bb I think our hand is definitely playable, leaving us the following options of either calling or raising, and if raising decide how much and why?
Calling keeps the pot small and allows Mr.Loose to come along for the ride and possibly create us a profitable scenario post flop in a small pot.
Raising enables the possiblity of winning a bigger pot later. Since we are reasonably deep, I think we need to start building a pot with this guy hoping for a nice pay off. We have maybe 4 shots at extracting value out of the limper, so why waste an opportunity? Its not like our hand sucks and that we our out of position. In fact we put ourselves in a better position when we make a healthy raise to 50 or 60 total. We will be last to act with a hand that can flop pretty well and has good implied odds vs a very loose limping range and maybe winning money off utg2 as well.
Also raising to isolate encourages the button to fold(which we want).
QTdd is usually a fold here with 120 bb stacks. In these games it will also be a call with a decent frequency and occasionally a raise. It is a very table dynamic and player dependent situation. Concerning the PFR; while the stacks are not very deep for such speculative hand — if the nitty raiser is the sort to marry themselves to an overpair and we can get it all when we make a strong hand that argues for a call. On the other hand if the PFR gives up on hands like JJ and QQ when an over hits that might also argue for a call.
In order to raise we would need something like bet sizing tells on the PFR, information on the players yet to act and more information on the weak player’s post flop tendencies.
The limper with whom we would like to play hands is also a secondary consideration. We can play many hands with that player that do not involve a tight raiser. QTdd is not the best hand to play vs such a player in any case. It has weakfish high card value, limited deceptive value, doesn’t make dominating flushes when the $ goes in and we do not want to semi-bluff a lot vs the weak player.
So its often OK to call but I am folding a lot.
What is the worst range of hands you are willing to play in this spot?
Hi Brian, thanks for the comment. Could I ask you to elaborate on this point, “we do not want to semi-bluff a lot vs the weak player”? I don’t necessarily disagree, but I don’t think it’s trivially true, either.
Semibluffing vs a weak player that calls too frequently is what I was referring to.
Common weak players call too much and pay off when draws hit so semibluffing is often not the best play for these stack sizes.
Call, but tempted to 4b vs 3bettors tight range.
With calling we run the risk of being squeezed.
if we 4b we may push the fish out.
Basics first. Folding is not an option as we want to play as many pots as possible with UTG.
3betting is not an option as we want to make sure we see a flop with UTG.
Calling is the play with a hand that plays very well in a multiway pot. UTG is going to come along everytime.
UTG+2 probably has a wide range for isolating, although not that wide given positions, but QTs still fares very well against his range.
Flop please. 🙂
Generally I would never worry about getting squeezed in a 2/5 game. This happens way too infrequently for it to a decisive factor in this hand.
The only goal is to play as many pots with Villain as possible. “Waiting for a better spot” would be extremely nitty and there is no way we can afford to fold here.
I’m coming around to calling rather than folding a bit more as the discussion goes on – largely because if we’re not playing single-raised, multi-way pots in position with suited broadway hands against at least one weak player, well then, why are we playing the game at all? Lol.
Still, I really don’t hate the fold either. Not to derail too much, but given the likelihood of being dominated by “big” broadway cards, wouldn’t we rather call with hands like 33 and 87s here?
“wouldn’t we rather call with hands like 33 and 87s here?”
1. Even if that were true, calling with QTs now doesn’t stop us from calling with 33 later.
2. It’s extremely unlikely that calling with 87s is better than calling with QTs. The presence of 77 – JJ in Villain’s range does a lot more to tank the equity of 98s than the presence of AQ does to tank QTs.
OK thanks I understand what you’re saying.
Call.
I’m balancing how I want to exploit the opponents here (utg calls too much, utg2 folds too much). And I’m tipping in favor of the keeping the loose player in the hand, since they are the source of the money at this table – they will put more money in, badly, than any other player at this table.
The nit-ish UTG2 is in the middle, just where you want them for post flop play. I expect the loose UTG to check/call the flop most of the time. The nit UTG2 will bet if when they have decent equity, and you could call depending on board texture. But UTG2 will probably check/fold with medium hands when I bet and UTG calls, because they don’t want play in the middle where they don’t know how good their hand ranks (or they’re going to try to end the hand right now). Basically that player type, in this position, plays straight.
The best case I’m working toward is playing the loose UTG heads up. The worst case is playing only the nit UTG2 and folding out the donator. With deeper stacks I’d 3 bet if the UTG seemed to call reliably.
UTG+2 is not likely to be going after the fish from EP. His nittiness would trump that desire. That said, his range crushes QTs. For this reason, we cant 3-bet and a flat is borderline vs him because even though we are getting 30x implied odds, I dont think we hit the flop hard enough, often enough. We also have bad reverse implied odds.
All of that said, if UTG really is crazy bad, it may be worth it. Maybe that mean we have to be able to fold Qxx to UTG+1 but stack off on Txx vs UTG. I don’t know.
I would not call a $20 raise from a $400 nit and I would never fold it to an $800 nit. At $600, I think the call is borderline and UTG’s fishiness probably pushes it over to +EV.
A side note is that if the whole table is salivating over him, then your call will probably cause players behind to call as well which adds to your EV since you have position on all but one of them.
Bottom line: It is probably a call and proceed with caution.
I forgot to mention that we are protected from light squeezers behind us because they…
A. know that a nit raised from EP and
B. want action from the fish
I would call.
I don’t think a 3 bet accomplishes enough for us. Yes, it bloats the pot and gives us the initiative… but you can make that case for every hand, from every position. I wouldn’t be looking to bloat the pot. Yes we want to play hands against looseymcgee, but you are still facing a raise from a tight UTG+2 player. In this spot I think our light 3bet range would be better off consisting of small pairs and Ax suited types. Hands that had both “flop huge” potential, as well as show down value.. for the loosey utg’s benefit. Its not enough to say lets raise because it gives us a chance to win a huge pot. The majority of pots we play with the QTs are going to be just mid/top pair, weak kicker etc.. Some draws of course, which helps a little. But I think we should only be 3 betting if we are planning on winning this hand by getting everyone to fold. So bluffing. But this doesn’t seem like a great spot for that. We want to encourage the utg to spew off chips, not get him to fold and end up against an early position TAG with a mediocre hand.
All that being said, I would never be folding this hand. I would call, and play it more or less straight up. As in, if the flop were favorable I would continue. I wouldn’t try to get tricky and invent creative ways to win the hand, unless the UTG folds. We should either be exploiting UTG’s loose play or exploiting UTG+2’s tight play. Doing both in the same hand will take some fancy footwork, or ideal situations. Like if the flop is bad for UTG2, but lukewarm for UTG. That’d be great. But figuring out which is which, without investing too much will take a good A game.
I say Call, and then get sticky on the flop if you even remotely connect.
Call.
I disclaim that I am making a lot of generalizations on player archetypes in my explanation but I think they hold up well enough to sustain my argument.
My rationale is that with the UTG Fish limping in early position it indicates a hand that he’s deemed worth $5 to see the flop. Fish often know just enough strategy to get themselves in a sticky situation far too frequently for their skill level and are likely unaware that they are doing so. Here he’s limping with the hope to see a cheap flop and if he hits hard on the flop, he’ll take home a decent size pot.
The Nit in UTG+2 bets out to 4x the BB and he’s probably fully aware that UTG is in fact a Fish. So I would put his range on pocket 9s and up. I’d maybe exclude AJ and A10 off as he would either fold this or just limp (but Nits in my experience aren’t limpers). 4x BB is strong enough to ward off some more marginal/awkward hands like K8 suited from the looser players at the table but not large enough to dissuade other pocket pairs that he has overs to. I don’t think the Nit is the insatiable bear who wants the fish but instead wants the thrill of the hunt (to play straight-up poker).
Coming around to the Hero on the cut-off, calling makes the most sense with a hand like Q10s because it plays well into multi-way pots. Calling accomplishes a few things at this point:
1. The hero has position on the Nit who at this point in the hand is the player to be most weary of.
2. It invites the possibility of a cascading call effect from those behind him with the marginal/awkward hands mentioned above. Essentially because the CO called, the button will call and then the blinds; all for the sake of seeing a well priced pot with good odds.
3. Regardless if the above is true, I think the Fish will come along. He’s already invested $5 into a pot that is now $52, what’s another $15?
Let’s say the Hero calls and then the button or one of the blinds 3-bets it. At that point it’s safe to say that the UTG Fish is long gone, but what about our Nit? He’s lead out in somewhat early position and has faced a call from the CO and now a 3-bet from the button. Having no information about the player on the button I cannot make any assumptions but observing from the perspective of the Nit, I’d expect a 4-bet here from any premium hand (JJ and up). If that’s the case, we fold and watch how the hand plays out to gather more insight on the remaining players. If the Hero were to 3-bet I’d expect the same results, which is why I think calling is the best play.
I believe the key aspect of this hand is what result calling will perpetuate. Will it have the cascading call-for-pot-odds effect or will it be a 3 way pot between the Hero, Fish, and Nit? Either result is good for Q10s.
If it happens to go heads-up against the Nit then I think playing the board and responding cautiously to the Nit’s actions will be advisable.
Why do you think it helps you to have the button and/or blinds overcall? I can maybe see a case for calls from the blinds being good because you have position on them, but I can’t see any reason why you would want the button to call and take away your absolute position postflop.
My thought is that if I’m going into the pot with Q10s and if I miss the flop then I’m out with no hesitation. However if I flop two spades or two pair then I have a very strong hand that I will not mind betting into 2 or more other players. I cannot deny it is a risky mind set to want the other players but Q10s only plays so well on a dry flop. Any decent pocket pair from the Nit will most likely check – call for pot control and fold to any indication of strength (leading out into multi way pot).
Perhaps not the most conservative approach in retrospect but if I’m going to call with a somewhat marginal hand I want to get in more money early because if I do it there’s little chance I will get paid off for having the nuts but I can easily take the pot down with a semi-bluff. Overall the plan is to win the hand on the flop if I get a piece of it otherwise check/fold.
People should look this one up in their databases. I think you’ll find that you do much worse than you think with mediocre hands in multi-way pots.
I think this is a fold.
We’re in bad relative position so we will practically never get to tailor our flop play to one opponent or the other and they are going to tug us in different directions.
I tried to look this situation up in my database and it is a pretty uncommon one.
That said, I’ve lost massively calling with broadway suited gappers after a limp and a raise.
Maybe y’all have a bigger edge than I do though. 8)
I think I’d be inclined to call here, hoping to hit the flop or have good bluffing opportunities given my position and UTG+2’s likely straightforward play in a multiway pot postflop. A raise may be better (insert math here) but I don’t love the idea of potentially forcing out UTG and if you get called by UTG+2, you are likely significantly behind.
All I know for sure is that a fold is wrong because you already said this is a multi-street question. 🙂