q-j in late position, nl

[Cosmo 0]

Im interested in how to play this hand in late position and with no raises. I seem to just call with it most of the time as im afraid to raise with it because i might run into something bigger. Should I be raising with it or just trying to see flops for cheap with it. To me it seems like sort of a trap hand

[akishore 0]

it's a huge trap hand. never, ever raise with it pre-flop, and never call a raise with it. even if you hit top pair on the flop, proceed very cautiously (be aggressive at first, but if you get any action in return, be wary).aseem

[Guest XXEddie]

if its suited ill raise, fold to any re-raise and probably fold to a flop bet if i dont hit much

[TheSpartan 0]

If your in position with limpers in the game, you should raise this hand at least 3x BB IMHO. Then again, I'm aggressive :shock: . 1) You might steal the blinds. 2) You remove a lot of drawing hands that limped in 3) It's actually a fairly good hand, and can partially hit a lot of flops.If your post flop play is not up to snuff, you may want to just limp on it though.

[akishore 0]

ok, let me elaborate a little, i think my first response was too brief and didn't completely explain it.according to sklansky and another author (forgot who), the quality of hands are measured in three dimensions:1. top pair value2. suited value3. connected valuefor a hand to be playable, it should be good in at least two of these dimensions.in limit poker, having good top pair value can sometimes be good enough if you don't have quality in the other two dimensions. thus, ATo is a decent hand in limit HE, because it has fairly good top pair value, though no suited value and very little connected value. in NL, hands need more top pair value to be as playable as their limit counterparts. thus, ATo is marginal at best in NL.on the other hand, in NL, hands with suited value and/or connected value become much more playable than their limit counterparts, because of implied odds. that is, a hand like 87s is a great hand in NLHE because of the implied odds that allow you to draw to straights and flushes, even in a heads-up raised pot (in a similar situation in limit poker, 87s is not even close to being playable).that said, QJ has little top pair value in NL (QJ is playable in limit, but you're asking about NL), because you'll either pick up a small pot with it or lose a big pot when you're beaten. example: flop comes Q82... on this flop, you will either just pick up the tiny pot since no one probably got a piece of that, or you'll get a lot of action when you're beaten by a better kicker or a set, etc.QJ has decent connected value. it can flop three straights, not bad, and all of them will be the nut straight. plus, when you flop a straight like broadway (ace high), you are likely to get a lot of action from TPTK or two pair hands, so this adds to its connected value.finally, QJs has good suited value since it'll make a fairly high straight (it'll be rare for you to be beaten by a king-high flush or an ace-high flush, but there are a lot of other flushes you beat, like a 6-high flush if someone is playing 65s, etc.).so, in conclusion, QJo is not a great hand at all to play in NL because it has decent value in only one dimension (connected value, very little in top pair value), but QJs is playable in NL because it has decent value in two dimensions.with QJo, i will limp in middle/late position but will definitely fold to a raise. i will never raise with QJo except maybe to steal the blinds. with QJs, however, i will likely limp in the same positions and call a raise with them. in fact, a few days ago i was playing a live four-handed NL game and picked up QJs in the big blind. UTG folded, button limped, and SB (who was a very tight/aggressive player) raised the pot. i opted to call, as did the button, and voila, i flopped the nut straight on a rainbow flop of 8-9-10. SB bet out, i raised about a pot-sized raise (i don't like to slowplay straights because if a Q or J came out, i won't be able to extract many chips at all since the board will be a four-straight... plus, i might be then beaten by a higher straight), and long story short, i won a big pot from the SB who had KK.so in conclusion, QJo is a marginal hand to play in NL (one that you should only limp with in position if you can see a cheap flop), but QJs is a playable hand that can take people down.aseem

[TheSpartan 0]

so, in conclusion, QJo is not a great hand at all to play in NL because it has decent value in only one dimension (connected value, very little in top pair value), but QJs is playable in NL because it has decent value in two dimensions. With QJo, i will limp in middle/late position but will definitely fold to a raise. i will never raise with QJo except maybe to steal the blinds.

I sort of disagree with this statement. If your in late position QJo has a medium amount of top pair value - and you have position! Yes, I'd fold it in an instant if someone raised me, but if it's limped to me and I'm on the button, no way would I just let SB & BB players draw against me (well, maybe if I'm playing a rock who called from POS1).And the main reason to raise here is to force someone to respect your hand. Even if you only partially hit and are attempting to bluff, your opponent has to respect your preflop raise (possible overpair, possible set, etc). There are so many ways to play this hand to opponents, and honestly, it's an easy one to fold. No reason to get caught with a big loss - as it should be obvious fairly quickly that you're toast.

[MasterLJ 0]

Horrible Horrible hand to raise with. Any callers are going to have you absolutely dominated, outkicked and beat. Limp all you can, but don't play it for top pair, play it for the straight or what not.Just think of what hands you'd call a NL raise with, and then imagine that people are going to call you with the same hand.That's why I like low suited connectors even better than QJ suited in late position, because at least you know that your top pair of 7 on the board doesn't have to worry about a kicker on a low board. But that's just me.