JTs Option on the BB

Loose-passive low-limit holdem. You have JTs on the BB. Four players call, and the SB also calls.

Check or raise?

What if you had 66 instead?

ScottyZ

Comments

  • I like raising with the JTs more than I like raising with 66...the JTs has alot more flops that help it, and if you do get a good flop you might as well get as many chips out of the fish as you can.

    I was talking with the oldtimer who was sitting next to me in the tournament I played at the casino yesterday about JTs and he told me that back in the day before all the mathematicans and computer scientists got involved, Jts was considered by most to be the best starting hand in Hold 'Em.
  • check either one. you know no-one will fold for one more bet,
    there will be overcards, you'll have to hit either hand.
  • raise either one. mix up your play. no-one will be able to put
    you on a hand.
  • professor wrote:
    raise either one. mix up your play. no-one will be able to put
    you on a hand.

    He said low limit poker... Most opponents don't even realise that you get delt two cards.. If he's raising, its primarily for value not image.
  • I would just check on either one. In low limit, you're not going to get anyone to fold, and you're probably just dumping more money into a hand that's not great unless the flop hits it. I used to play those sorts of hands more aggressively trying to thin the herd, but I just ended up losing more money to chasers. :mad:

    If the Flop does hit though, you can get a ton of money out of it, because most of them still won't fold. ;)
  • TJs... six of you in... I'd consider raising for value here. Realistically though, I'd probably check.

    66... six of you in... I'd check. You want as many players in as possible if you hit your 6 on the flop, so you don't want to lose anybody by raising. However, since it's low-limit, we can assume that nobody will fold to a raise, even if it is from a tight player in the BB, so you probably wouldn't lose anyone anyways. Nonetheless, you're in bad position to bluff at a flop that doesn't have a six (and most of course won't) if you raise preflop, so I'd check.

    Regards,
    all_aces
  • Thanks for the comments so far.

    Some people have mentioned this already, but to add a little more focus to the question, I think we can assume that all players will call for one more bet if you do decide to raise. Also assume that the chances of getting re-raised pre-flop are effectively nil.

    ScottyZ
  • I'd limp with JTs. JTs is a better than average hand against 5 players, but is not likely to be the best preflop. After the flop you're in EP so that gives you a bit of a disadvantage to 4 of the 5 other players. I guess it depends on what you want to flop. Sure, a flush or straight draw would be nice, but if you don't get that and a J or T hit the flop you have 1 pair (mediocre kicker)


    Low limit players will generally play anything, so you can lead out the betting.. Due to the passiveness of the game, someone with a better kicker, (QT, KJ, etc) may call you down the whole way. Now, where does your hand stand?
    You'll get people with AJ calling all the way, I'll also get people with 74 calling all the way. Sometimes you can tell the difference between these players, sometimes you cannot...

    Change the scenario to the button and I might raise with JTs.

    With 66 I will check or limp from any position.
  • Raise pre-flop on both. As others have noted, no one is going to fold for one more bet. If you hit the flop, jam the pot as far, and as fast, as you can. Play aggressive and force those chasers to think. Then, let them think harder while you stack what used to be "their" chips.
  • Assuming you were up against some typical hands at a low limit table..


    Holdem Hi: 850668 enumerated boards
    cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
    Js Ts 213148 25.06 636606 74.84 914 0.11 0.251
    Kd 9h 77496 9.11 765792 90.02 7380 0.87 0.095
    As 4d 209415 24.62 640339 75.27 914 0.11 0.246
    8h 7h 171782 20.19 677972 79.70 914 0.11 0.202
    Kc Qh 171447 20.15 671841 78.98 7380 0.87 0.206


    Looks like a variance increasing raise to me.. You may have a slight edge but I highly doubt you've got the best hand preflop. Check the BB, see the flop for cheap. Your callers aren't folding if they catch any piece and you flop a monster anyway.
  • Looks like a variance increasing raise to me

    It probably is. Do we care about variance in cash games?
    I highly doubt you've got the best hand preflop

    A bizzare thing to say after you've just shown us an example of a hand where JTs *is* the best hand against some "typical [low-limit] hands" pre-flop.

    ScottyZ
  • It probably is. Do we care about variance in cash games?


    I do. I don't like my bankroll taking wild swings for very marginal +EV plays. Thats just my personal preference.
    A bizzare thing to say after you've just shown us an example of a hand where JTs *is* the best hand against some "typical [low-limit] hands" pre-flop.

    Yes, except those hands that I posted are probably your best case scenario. Which means AT BEST you MIGHT have a very small chance at having the best hand.
  • Yes, except those hands that I posted are probably your best case scenario.

    Fair enough. I guess it threw me off when you originally called them "typical". ;)
    Which means AT BEST you MIGHT have a very small chance at having the best hand.

    I guess getting at whether or not this is the case is the real guts of the original question, right?

    Also, besides just hot-and-cold pot equity, should implied odds and/or effective odds be a consideration?

    ScottyZ
  • I guess getting at whether or not this is the case is the real guts of the original question, right?

    I think one of the benefits of a loose-passive game (calling stations) is being able to see cheap flops with marginal hands.. raising will get more money into the pot but it will also commit you to playing farther along in the hand than you may like to.. I find it far easier to dump a hand when I didn't raise than when I did (I'd usually bet the flop regardless).
    Also, besides just hot-and-cold pot equity, should implied odds and/or effective odds be a consideration?

    I'm not a big fan of implied odds in limit poker because you can't really take anyones stack when your hand hits.. I really only use implied odds when I'm on a draw thats offering me slightly less than required odds..
  • Also, besides just hot-and-cold pot equity, should implied odds and/or effective odds be a consideration?

    I suppose that's a little too heavy on the lingo. Here are some quick and loose defintions:

    Hot-and-cold pot equity: A snapshot of your expected win assuming all hands proceed to the showdown with no future betting. This is the kind of thing you'll measure with a hand evaluator such as www.twodimes.net/poker

    Implied odds measure the expectation of winning future bets if you complete a draw (or otherwise improve your hand).

    Effective odds measure how much you expect to pay for your draw before it is completed.

    ScottyZ
  • You caught me, I had no idea what any of that hot and cold stuff meant ;)
  • Hot-and-cold pot equity: A snapshot of your expected win assuming all hands proceed to the showdown with no future betting. This is the kind of thing you'll measure with a hand evaluator such as www.twodimes.net/poker

    Implied odds measure the expectation of winning future bets if you complete a draw (or otherwise improve your hand).

    Effective odds measure how much you expect to pay for your draw before it is completed.
    These terms should not be confused with "Against All Odds", which was actually a Phil Collins song, taken from the 1984 movie of the same name.

    Regards,
    all_aces
  • all_aces wrote:
    These terms should not to be confused with "Against All Odds", which was actually a Phil Collins song, taken from the 1984 movie of the same name.

    Regards,
    all_aces

    Nor should that particular song be confused with the usual odds quoting convention for poker: All Odds Against.

    Take a look at me now,
    ScottyZ
  • There's no reason to raise JTs.

    You raise 66 for value because you're an 8-1 dog to flop a set and you're getting (assuming 6 limpers) 13-1 on that raise. Obviously a set plays itself.

    The fundamental people have been using is that we should raise big drawing hands to build a big pot so that the chasers will have more incentive to chase hands that are drawing slim-to-dead, i.e. chasing an Ace when you've already flopped a set.

    But in most low-limit games people don't pay attention to pot size anyway!

    They're going to chase, regardless of potsize, so you're not getting any extra money out of them should you flop a good hand/draw. All you're doing is making it more expensive to see a flop you want to see cheaply (or in this case, free). i.e. reducing your implied odds.

    This is standard HPFAP stuff. They're going to chase anyway, regardless of pot size.
  • You raise 66 for value because you're an 8-1 dog to flop a set and you're getting (assuming 6 limpers) 13-1 on that raise.

    With 6 limpers, you're getting 6-1 on a raise (assuming they will all call you and there will be no re-raise). This is *not* raising for value since you are an 8-1 dog to flop a set.

    Even still, it may or may not be correct to raise with 66 (or JTs) for some other reason(s).

    Do count dead money in the pot if your figuring "to call" odds. However, if you're deciding whether or not to bet (or raise) for value when you're on a draw, the appropriate odds are *always* N to 1 where N = number of opponents whom you expect to call. (I don't even know if there is a name for these kind of odds... I'm going to call them "value odds".)

    Also note, there may be additional reasons to bet or raise draws besides for value.

    ScottyZ
  • Loose-passive low-limit holdem. You have JTs on the BB. Four players call, and the SB also calls.

    Check or raise?
    RAISE...
    ... in a loose passive game raising this hand gets more money in the pot when you have a better than fair chance of winning even if you lose a player or two! (and I doubt you will)
    What if you had 66 instead?
    Check...
    ... you need to make trips for this hand to pay off on a loose-passive game. Raising will not thin the field enough (if at all)... see the flop cheap and go from there.
  • ScottyZ wrote:
    With 6 limpers, you're getting 6-1 on a raise (assuming they will all call you and there will be no re-raise). This is *not* raising for value since you are an 8-1 dog to flop a set.
    ScottyZ

    Scotty:

    There's currently 7 SB in the pot. If you choose to put in 1 bet (and assume every limper will call), the pot will turn into a 13 SB pot. Your one bet turns into 13.

    You count the BB as part of the pot, not part of your bet.
  • Gamblor wrote:
    Scotty:

    There's currently 7 SB in the pot. If you choose to put in 1 bet (and assume every limper will call), the pot will turn into a 13 SB pot. Your one bet turns into 13.

    You count the BB as part of the pot, not part of your bet.

    Don't count dead money in the pot when you are a value bettor (or raiser). Do count dead money in the pot if you are a caller.

    Your BB is dead money in the pot.

    If you were truly getting 13 to 1 for your money when raising from the BB against 6 opponents, it would be profitable to raise with *well* over 50% of your hands from the BB. Namely, at least the hands which are better than the average hand.

    ScottyZ
  • I'm interested in this because I would virtually never consider raising in this situation except for the odd case where I would want to vary my play or be deceptive. I'm not really convinced there is a lot of value in deceptive play at low limits because most players aren't aware enough to follow your "typical" play in the first place. Having said this, I'm always interested in improving my game, so I'm interested in other views. My take is:

    JTs

    I check preflop because your "hit" on the flop is still usually going to end up being a draw (i.e. 4 to a straight or flush), and you will be out of position in future betting rounds.

    If you only get top pair on the flop and no draw, you have to be careful with the hand as you have kicker problems and are out of position. The other difficulty in low limit when you end up with only a pair on the flop is that leading out with a bet after the flop to get information won't necessarily tell you much. At low limit, several people are likely to call you and you won't know if they have top pair with a better kicker, overcards, lower pair, or nothing at all. Then assuming the turn doesn't help you, you are in the position of either firing out a bet again when there is a relatively good chance that you don't have the best hand on the turn, or checking and calling (*shudders*) and praying no overcards come.

    A second issue with this hand is that if you get a made flush on the flop, you have to worry about everyone with a draw to a higher flush. At low limit, people will often play any K or A so there is a much higher chance that someone will have the higher flush draw than at a tight game where people might fold Axo and even Axs.

    Love the nut straight potential and the multiple ways you can win with this hand though. Actually I LOVE this hand at limit, but I love it a lot more after getting a good piece of the flop. What I'm really hoping for are multiple ways to win (i.e. top pair with a draw(s), or draws to both the straight and flush, even an open ended straight draw or flush draw will make me happy) after the flop. There is lots of potential for you to be getting proper pot odds to check/call or even value bet post flop with this hand.



    66

    check - if I miss the flop I'm likely checking and folding because I have so few cards that can improve the hand. I want to put in as little money as possible preflop. The implied odds are what drives this sort of hand. I check, knowing that the concealed nature of a set is likely to result in a huge pot because the other players are likely to pay me off when they hit a pair or even two on the flop. No investment + huge return potential = happy camper. Raising here does not typically affect the post flop play of your opponents much at low limits, so you really aren't getting a good return on your money for the raise. If anything, it might make them more likely to fold if they miss the flop and I bet out (which I will likely do if there are flush/straight draws on board). I want them to hit on the flop, and also not recognize that I might have a hand.


    I do pay attention to implied odds a lot, which is part of my reasoning for these plays. For preflop play, that means I'm considering my bet into the pot to be an investment. I want a high return on my investment, knowing that most times (especially out of position) I will have to fold after the flop. It's more obvious in the 66 situation, but even with JTs it applies. The real benefit of these hands is that they can result in HUGE pots when you hit the right cards. Most of the time you won't hit, so what I want is to put as little money as possible into the pot preflop, knowing that even when I do "hit" on the flop I will often have to put in more money and hope to improve by completing a draw on the turn or river. The other consideration in both these situations is that drawing hands are much easier to play in late position after you see what everyone else is doing post flop.
  • This topic got me rereading Lee Jones book. He says it's correct to raise in this situation when you probably have the best hand. His suggestion for raising from the bb is "Raise with AA-88, AKs-QJs, AQs-KJs, AKo-KQo, AQo". Seems to me that JTs is so marginally lower in value that QJs that raising is not a bad idea if people are playing loose enough that you think your JTs is the best hand.
Sign In or Register to comment.