QQ with lots of action

beanie42

0.25/0.50 NL .  I picked up :qh :qd in the CO+1 (started hand with $50.35) .  4 limpers in front so I raised to $2. 

SB re-raises to $6.25 - very tight player (started hand with $51.55).  However, I caught him making a play against me earlier with 72o, so he knows I'm tight and is tricky enough to take advantage.

UTG+1 calls (started hand with $41.95).  No read on this player, just came to the table a few hands ago, but has played the few hands he's been dealt to the flop before folding.

MP calls (started hand with $54.55). Semi-loose, has made similar calls with hands like AQo and JTs.

What's your play here?

BBC Z

Push.

You have to be an equity favourite against two players. 4.5 to one if you are dominated by AA/KK getting 3 to 1 in the worst case scenario, but getting about 70% equity in the best case.

Flint Bones

I push. You're getting the odds.

QQ has been very bad for me lately. I have run into the same thing and been crushed by aces a few times. No matter, I would have made the same move anyway. On the other side I have been busted by QQ a few times as well.

beanie42

I neglected to put in stack sizes, so I've added them to the OP.  Not sure if this makes a difference to the "push" recommendation, since that would be over $40 into a pot of $25 (after calling the re-raise).  Do you still push here, or just re-raise (how much), or possibly flat-call/fold ?

BBC Z

Your remaining stack / pot ratio is too small to effect anything. They'll call.

beanie42

BBC Z wrote:

Your remaining stack / pot ratio is too small to effect anything. They'll call.

I'm not sure I understand why? Action to me is $6.25 to call a pot of $18.75 . If I re-raise to $25, that gives the SB a call of $18.75 into $43.75, which I think is about 2.5 to 1. Those odds don't seem good enough for a lot of the potential "fishing" hands (suited connectors, etc.), and the later position players may simply be along for the ride (due to the odds). If the SB is attempting a steal, I don't think they have the odds for any 2, or even most draws. And if the SB goes away, that takes away a lot of the odds for the later positions.

To me, it seems like a re-raise below all-in should still be capable of either picking up the pot now against draws or weaker made hands, or at least identify big draws or strong made hands. What am I missing?

westside8

What do you do if they flat call? You are looking at around $25 left in your stack and the pot being at $75 or so already. You are pretty much committed to take this hand to showdown, so why not make the players pay for going in with a hand like AK or AQ. By not making them pay the max, you are giving them a possible way to get away from their hands if they miss they flop.

BBC Z

Those odds don't seem good enough for a lot of the potential "fishing" hands (suited connectors, etc.)

HUH? Beanie, the entire point of poker is to give your opponents bad odds. SHOULD the crap fold? Yes. Will they fold? No.

To me, it seems like a re-raise below all-in should still be capable of either picking up the pot now against draws or weaker made hands, or at least identify big draws or strong made hands. What am I missing?

1) You are being Timid
2) Are you going to fold anyway if someone comes over the top of you "$25" getting like 7 to 1 on your money?
3) Your stack is microscopic compared to the size of the pot
4) Your all-in makes your hand dead simple to play postflop, when you make your terrible call and go to an ace high flop and JJ bets into you. What do you do? Answer: You give your opponent a free shot at taking your stack (since you are showdown committed) while giving him an escape hatch if his crap completely misses.

beanie42

westside8 wrote:

What do you do if they flat call? You are looking at around $25 left in your stack and the pot being at $75 or so already.

BBC Z wrote:

1) You are being Timid
2) Are you going to fold anyway if someone comes over the top of you "$25" getting like 7 to 1 on your money?

Thanks, that's what I was missing (including the "timid" part, which I'm constantly working on ).  My results in this hand were great considering, but I knew I misplayed it, I just couldn't put my finger on it.

BBC Z wrote:

HUH? Beanie, the entire point of poker is to give your opponents bad odds. SHOULD the crap fold? Yes. Will they fold? No.

I have a lot of respect for the SB.  I'd played a lot with him, and he's very tight but solid.  I had to give his re-raise some respect, but not too much since he's capable of making a play with any 2.  Nobody else in the hand really concerned me to be honest (if the maniac has a monster - pay him).

I actually re-raised $14, which is what really made me question the hand.  I was thinking I should have raised more, however the comments here lead me to believe I should have simply pushed.

As it turned out, the SB re-re-raised all-in.  At this point, I was positive he had aces (since we were both tight enough that I couldn't fathom either of us making a 4th raise against the other without rockets).  Now my decision seemed fairly clear (based on the belief he had aces).  If both players called, I had the 4.5 to 1 odds to call.  If only 1 called, I'd be just under 4 to 1 odds (not enough) and I'd fold.

The UTG+1 called, MP folded, and I folded.  SB showed :ac :ad and UTG+1 showed :kd :kh .  While I was lucky to get away from this hand with only a small loss, I think the "correct" play would have been to go broke, so I think I misplayed the hand.  The trouble was identifying the point at which I screwed up which I think was  my $14 re-raise.  After that mistake, however, I think the fold was actually the correct decision though.

Thanks for the feedback guys!

westside8

beanie42 wrote:

As it turned out, the SB re-re-raised all-in. At this point, I was positive he had aces (since we were both tight enough that I couldn't fathom either of us making a 4th raise against the other without rockets).

I remember reading somewhere (I THINK Phil Gordon's book) that whoever is willing to make a fourth raise (but in his case - if it was his book - tournament play), chances are that the player has aces, especially a tight solid player.

beanie42

westside8 wrote:

I remember reading somewhere (I THINK Phil Gordon's book) that whoever is willing to make a fourth raise (but in his case - if it was his book - tournament play), chances are that the player has aces, especially a tight solid player.

It is his "Little Green Book", but it is primarily directed at NL cash games (although it's obviously applicable to tourneys). It was funny because I just bought/read that on Sunday, and it was screaming in my head - "The fourth raise ALWAYS means aces"

Flint Bones

In the end it was a good fold. But I would have probably lost a bit of money here. Out of curiousity, what was the flop?

beanie42

Flint Bones wrote:

Out of curiousity, what was the flop?

Sadly enough, the board came :10c :9c :8d :6h :7s for a split pot.

Metro

Beanie - I dont totally disagree with your play - especially since you had a read on the other player.

QQ with reraises can be very vulnerable - your best hope is that they are playing JJ very poorly.

AA or KK are likely and you are a huge dog. And against AK you are basically betting 50$ on a coin flip - I know you pretty well - And I know you wouldnt put 50$ on a coin flip.

Sometimes it is so obvious the other player has aces it is been screamed out - in this case you should fold (I would have much more difficulty doing it with KK). But QQ it sucks but definately possible.

Good fold.

Unknown

beanie42 wrote:

westside8 wrote:

I remember reading somewhere (I THINK Phil Gordon's book) that whoever is willing to make a fourth raise (but in his case - if it was his book - tournament play), chances are that the player has aces, especially a tight solid player.

It is his "Little Green Book", but it is primarily directed at NL cash games (although it's obviously applicable to tourneys).  It was funny because I just bought/read that on Sunday, and it was screaming in my head - "The fourth raise ALWAYS means aces"

Hmmm.... I always thought it was the third raise. Are you sure about the quote?

beanie42

all_aces wrote:

Hmmm.... I always thought it was the third raise.  Are you sure about the quote?

Yes - "The Fourth Raise Means Aces" - page 50