PokerStars homepage
  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.


No announcement yet.

10NL 6max Zoom #9 - QQ preflop against CO open

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 10NL 6max Zoom #9 - QQ preflop against CO open

    #9 This is a spot I get into a lot and have yet to find out an optimal way to approach it - QQ preflop against a 4bet. The problem with 10NL 6max Zoom is that every single reg seems to only get in 100BB preflop with KK or AA. If I decide to 5b shove I am basically only bluffing or hoping for the rare exception when a villain calls with the exact same hand or AK. If I call I have no idea where I stand in the hand postflop and since I will be OOP I am not a huge favorite of this play. Is folding an option? Well, if I get 4bet by a reg then my best play here is probably to fold. Does that mean that I should stop 3beting QQ pre and treat it like a TT type of hand? That does not make any sense to me but I honestly do not know how to play against a villain who I know can 4bet bluff occasionally but will only call with a hand that dominates me? And 3bet fold also makes me sick so what should I really do? 5bet small and fold? Help please! Uff. This should be the last hand for today. Thank you very much for your time umbup: Any advice will help

  • #2
    Any stats?


    • #3
      A classic reggish type of player 22/16 3bet 4.9 aggr factor 2.2, my stats show that he had a chance to 4bet 6 times and did it apparently only once - the one time I made a note on him when he 4bet insta folded to a shove. do not really think this is very helpful though as there are a lot of players playing similar stats so it almost feels like a generic 4 tabling 10NL villain


      • #4
        Always have a plan for the hand. If you don't know what you'll do if you get 4-bet, then don't 3-bet in the first place. There's no law that says you have to 3-bet QQ in this spot. Indeed, if villain is raising quite wide in the CO, and is capable of 4-bet bluffing, you're probably better off (and will get more value) by just calling.
        When he's on the steal with junk, 3-betting your queens manipulates his range. The junk gets folded, so you miss value, and he only continues with monsters and a few bluffs, and you find yourself in no man's land, either way ahead or way behind, playing a bloated pot oop and not knowing where you're at.

        Although you're out of position, the pot is small. I'd rather a play a small pot oop against a wide range I know I'm ahead of, than play a bloated pot oop against a narrower range that may well have me crushed.
        I think you could call here and then station it up post-flop, check-calling 100% of flops and seeing what villain does on the turn. If he checks there, or you still have an overpair (or a set), you can lead safe rivers for value.
        Bracelet Winner


        • #5
          Hey Arty,

          I think with the info Tommy gave us about villain's 4bet/fold earlier we can probably assume that he is capable of 4bet bluffing given our positions CO vs Blind. So once we put in the 3bet, I think this would be a good spot to 5bet shove.

          I mean would you consider 3bet/Folding QQ here? and yes I would flat QQ preflop without info or if villain folds to 3bets a high percentage of the time.


          • #6
            This is one of those spots where I think I am 3betting for value but get 4bet instead. Since it puts me in a really awkward position I think I will be better off just flatting QQ preflop and maybe do some bluff catching since not too many people flat QQ preflop when OOP. It just sucks that there seems to be no optimal way of playing against a highly polarized 4betting ranges. I am either forced to 3b fold QQ, flat and get any steal hand a cheap chance to suck out or 5b shove as a bluff


            • #7
              when we 3bet QQ I think folding is bad. Against an aggressive player who is capable of 4bet bluffing, I think we should 5bet shove not as a bluff but as value

              vs a value range of AA-QQ, and AK we have 40% equity. So 3bet/folding is less EV than 5bet shoving, If I'm not mistaken.


              • #8
                It's not really a value shove if we 5-bet jam, because worse hands (other than AK) aren't calling. But the 5-bet jam would allow us to gain 100% of the pot when bluffs (that may have had 35% equity against us) give up their entire equity share. And, as you point out, we'll usually have 40% when called, and the dead money is the padding that makes it profitable to "get it in bad".

                Except when I'm consciously 3-betting light, my plan is usually to 5-bet if I get 4-bet. If Tommy doesn't plan to 5-bet with a hand as strong as QQ, then he's better off flatting instead of 3-betting.
                (It's kind of cool to have a polarized 3-bet range, because then you can 3-bet-fold the bluffs, and 5-bet jam the top of the range. Medium strength hands like QQ-TT are good to just call the initial raise with. Against players with a wider stack-off range, then QQ would be in your 5-bet value-jamming range.)
                Bracelet Winner


                • #9


                  • #10
                    Hey Tommy, thanks for posting all these interesting spots - they've generated such great discussion from everybody, so the hands and discussion together have given me a lot to think about umbup: This is kind of an extension of what Arty brought up about 3-betting ranges, but I was thinking that the villain's 4-betting range might also have varied based on your 3-betting range? Like for players who have 4-bet bluffing ranges, are they generally going to only tend to be bluffing versus villains with 3-betting stats of like ... 18% and over, or whatever? Whereas if a villain has a 3-bet stat on the opposite end of the spectrum at around 3% or lower, are most 4-bettors going to be tending to stick more to value? Not sure if the stats I have for you are true to the ones you have on yourself, with your larger sample size, but in any case, I guess just generally like I thought a player's 3-bet % might tend to factor into a 4-bettor's range if he's got a bluffing range ... you think that's generally true? Still trying to figure it all out myself, so ... just kind of throwing stuff out there for discussion purposes I guess


                    • #11
                      Sam, I think you're on the right lines.
                      If someone is 3-betting a lot (more than 10%), then you can widen your 4-bet value range, and add some 4-bet bluffs. If he's only 3-betting for value (less than 10%), then your 4-bet range should be narrower on the whole, but whether you include bluffs in the range depends on whether the 3-bettor ever folds to 4-bets. (If his 3-bet range is exactly the same as his stack-off range, then you shouldn't 4-bet bluff at all, because he's always shoving on you).
                      Bracelet Winner


                      • #12
                        Hey Arty, okay thx - some awesome points!! umbup: And then I guess might 3-bettors also be looking to adjust ranges, depending on the villain's tendency to fold or 4-bet? I think I read somewhere that one of the rationales for mixing light 3-bets in with our 3-bet value range is so that our value range might then tend to be met with more calls from a wider range, rather than only 4-bet by AA and KK? Like say for example if somebody has a 3-bet % of 3%, one way to mask the strength of QQ might be to flat-call. And then this might be somewhat counterintuitive, but then another way to mask the strength of 3-bets with QQ ... would that be to keep 3-betting with QQ, and then also do it with hands like A3s when in the same spot?



                        X Cookies Information

                        We have placed cookies on your computer to improve your experience on our website. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.