Argue this.Implied odds excuse

So It struck me hard last night about the excuse implied odds provides us, either consciously or unconsciously.

Situation is I'm EP with QJs and first to act. Table is reasonably active, blinds and antes make it so that my pot odds are a little short for an actual odds based call (currently about 3.5/1 need 4/1), but close enough, when added to the likelihood of another player entering the pot, so that my implied odds are correct.

In this case my QJs are very playable, and I usually enter the pot, sometimes raising, sometimes limping. This was late tourney play during that phase when limps are common.

So I got to thinking, if QJs, why not 56s. Which led me to a serious discussion with myself about just what was playable from where.

While I like to think I am a Tag/Lag Hybrid (HAG?), in this case I realized that I need excuses to enter pots. No longer do I need excuses to avoid pots.

So I think implied odds are a valid excuse to enter pots. Really, I had done this for a long time, but without thinking about it. Now, I want to round out my thinking about it and need you all to argue (discuss) this.

Maybe it's a matter of semantics, but I'd prefer a reason to play a hand rather than an excuse. When you need an excuse to do something, that implies the action would normally be considered incorrect but you've rationalized doing it anyway. We can use implied odds as an excuse to play a lot of substandard hands, but most of those will end up being losers.

I have no problem trying to get in cheaply with suited connectors in late position, or better yet raising with the possibility of taking down the pot right there, but what's your plan when limping early and getting raised by a later-position player? Do you toss them, or put in the extra money with a speculative hand knowing you're probably an underdog unless you hit the flop hard?

In other words, what's your reason for playing QJs in early position? Do you think you have the current best hand? Do you think everyone else will fold? Are you just hoping to get lucky? Especially if you're limping, you're saying you hope to get lucky on the flop. That's not going to happen frequently enough to make up for the times you'll lose, unless you have great reads on your opponents and super ninja bluffing skills.

56s is far worse than QJs because it lacks high card potential and can be more easily beaten by higher flushes. Its only benefit is that if it hits, its strength will usually be well disguised.

Here are a few good reasons (not excuses) to play speculative hands:
a) You're in late position and can get in cheaply, especially in a multiway pot.
b) You're in late position and the blinds are likely to fold to your raise.
c) You're playing your opponents, not your cards.
d) You just know that flush is coming.

What kind of tournaments are you playing where limping is common late in the game? With antes in play there's added incentive to raise preflop.

thinking the same thing but could never verbalize it
well said agree with every word

If normal means anything, then the normal move is to fold. So an excuse provides a reason to enter the pot.

Semantics.......

Have you checked your stats to see how much you've won or lost with that type of hand from different positions? I checked mine and over about the last 145,000 hands I've been a slight winner with QJs from every position except the blinds -- and about half of my winnings have come from early position, which would seem to belie what I said above, though I still stand by it. It won some large pots when flopping good, and losses were small because the hand was was easy to get away from postflop most of the time. This was in cash games rather than tournaments, though.

Anyone else want to share profit vs. loss stats? Different opinions from above?

QJS is usually a trouble hand especially if you have to call a raise from behind. It may work depending on how weak the table is. If everyone is limping you probably are better off raising this hand and folding to any reraise. If the table is so weak that a raise is the exception to the rule, then you can pretty much raise with any 2. I don't know about implied odds since you have not made a hand yet and really have no draw.

When is that limpy stage of a MTT? Good question, but it will generally occur after a rebuy period has ended, and add-ons are no longer available. Also it happens about an hour after late registration in large freerolls. It tends to stop somewhere short of the bubble as some seek to take that 'limp into the money' thinking that does exist and exploit the heck out of it.

For a good hour (guarantees), the dynamics are something along the lines of "lets regroup our thinking from the insanity". So I find lots of limped multi-way pots. Sometimes it lasts shorter, sometimes longer, but I expect it in most rebuys. It provides some excellent time to refocus without going brain dead.

At the point where we realize that most of the table is playing that way, you have reached the end of it, and should crank up the aggression, but till then the sanity that prevails does offer opportunities.

That I used QJs as an example is not the point. It is the implied odds of any action , with any cards, during that stage of the game. I used suited connectors because we all get at least a little tempted with them, suited connectors provide better than 4-1. Just any suited hand gives about 4-1 odds, and connectors provide about the same. So JTo will play about as well as J3s. High card considerations do come into play, but maybe more often than they need to.

It is so situational IMO.

E.G. limping QJs UTG or in LP when there are numerous short stacks left to bad is throwing chips away IMO because you are nearly always behind when someone shoves and therefore can't call.

Playing suited connectors OOP is horrible, especially when in MTTs when you don't have a brilliant SPR.

Are you sure you don't just think "implied odds" to allow yourself to enter pots with weak hands OOP?

My stats on QJs are slightly less than 48%.

But most of the time (about 76%) in late position.

some players make excusses to call some make excusses to fold... you can win as a tag or as a lag.. its all about being comfortable... Both styles you have your standard play then you have your plays that are made based of of reads. A lose player might look at implied odds a tight player might look at implied odds vs reverse implied odds

Again, not about which cards.

FWIW I too show a profit from playing QJs in a my stats for all positions. I haven't (yet) broke it down by position.

I'm certain that a big thinking here is that they are fairly easy to dump to a bad flop, and usually will prevail in a good to great flop.

I don't show well with all suited connectors. Perhaps its the way I play them, or don't play them, which is sort of what I am aiming at with this thread. I know I used to never want to play 56s for instance, but maybe I should have been.

At an extremely aggressive table, will implied odds take on a whole different meaning?

I also notice that I might ignore good implied odds in a tourney, where the decision might mean life or death, as opposed to ring where the facts are the facts ma'am.

I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on the 3.5:1 vs. 4:1 stuff here. I've never put anything together on it yet, but my intuition has always been that thinking about preflop x:1 in no limit holdem is way overrated.

An example could be this. FR game and everyone is 100x. UTG opens for 3x and 2 people call behind him. It gets to you in the BB and you have 68s. You're getting better than 5:1. I'm convinced that in most situations (barring some giant fish as a caller or something) calling there is a rather good sized leak in nlhe. We can analyze those spots a bit, but some players with large databases can start filtering and report on their findings.

I like the statement about reasons to play a hand, not excuses. There are so many situations in poker that there is probably a situation for every single action with every single hand that you can think of. Many of these situations are very similar, but one detail change can completely change the most positive ev play to a negative ev play.

Errrrr its about stack sizes and player tendancies. Limping in EP with a QJs type hand in EP in mid tourney play is a very bad idea on an aggressive table unless you rekon back raising will turn out well.

In these type hands position is king, this is where you should be making hay. Limping 15-20% of your stack in mid-late tourney play is insane unless your sitting on AA-KK.

As for the semantics;

'The dog ate my homework' is an excuse, unless he really did eat my homework, in which case it is an explanation.

In both cases they are reasons for some action or outcome.

Ok. wat ???????
DJ you have a tendancy to make sense to yourself sometimes, to me that seems like drivel, please do explain. Ill be back in 2 days when your have yourself figured out. Dog-homework-playing bad poker ???

Nothing personal fyi

I get what DJ is saying, but I have a little different take on it. Something can be an excuse even if it's the truth rather than a lie. An excuse is offered to explain something negative or shameful. You can have an excuse for being late to work or cheating on your spouse. "My alarm clock didn't go off," true as that may be, is still an excuse and your boss isn't going to like it. It might provide a reason for him to fire you if it happens frequently enough.

As for hand selection in tournaments, I like the "hourglass" theory -- speculate with a wider range early on when the blinds are low, reign in it mid-tournament, then as you get to the end with increasing blinds and antes, and especially when it gets short-handed, open up your game more.

I like this hourglass analogy.
Really makes a lot of sense for tourney play

Nice post

In my OP, I mentioned the table had been active, but left out it had NOT BEEN very agro.

It was during those mid tourney doldrums I mentioned. Tho it isn't really important to this discussion, I seem to remember that on top of the revelation I had, I won that hand.

As for the 3.5/1,4/1 thing. I have always played it that a flush draw pf is playing at about a 4-1 disadvantage for the flush to hit. Similar odds for connectors, about 4-1 pf. Of course I could pair up which increases my odds, but I use that factor as a fudge factor most of the time. I have seen much more optimistic odds for flush draws, and connectors PF, but the 4-1 pf odds works ok for me.

In this case it was as much about my expectation and thus implied chance that someone else would enter the pot without raising and thus fulfilling my implied odds as anything else.

Granted that poker is less about the cards, and more about the 'situation', but sometimes the right cards can best a good situation. In this case I was EP with a perfectly playable hand, and enough chips to play a little speculatively.

I will do it again, sometimes raising that same hand/situation sometimes folding it, the rest of the time I limp it. Easy to fold these (the QJ in this case) at any stage of any tourney.

For TB, I understand your POV, but also understand that we seldom get the gems dealt to us, and so have to venture out of the golden zone. And thus sc's give us one avenue to venture....IMHO

I know how to play tight, but what I am seeing lately is it is less about tight or loose, and seemingly more about good decisions at appropriate times.

Sorry I don't want to try and derail the thread but after reading this post I couldn't help but think about ways to exploit this period of play that you see happening all the time. You say that everyone seems to be re grouping and limping along, trying to play small pots. Then you say you want to do the same thing. Shouldn't we be seeing this as a time to take these limped pots down? If everyone is limping and not showing any aggression then we should be doing the opposite and building our stack as much as we can while this passive behaviour continues.


When you reach the end of this stage and people begin to get aggressive again we can take a break and play less pots while people are there going at it. If we have exploited the passive period enough, we should have a decent stack to sit on for a little while and get refreshed ourselves.



As far as limping in for implied odds goes, we really need to be thinking about all stack sizes at the table. Generally in the mid to late stages of a tournament we are not playing around with large stacks. Anything under effective stack sizes of about 50bbs and our implied odds suddenly don't look so appealing...

I'm not sure where those numbers came from, but the odds of making a flush on the flop are more like 118:1. Even flopping a flush draw is about 8:1 (and 9:1 for a straight draw), and almost 15:1 to make your flush by the river. The only thing you're getting around 4:1 on is the possibility of flopping either a straight or flush draw if you start with suited connectors. Then you need to consider how much more is going to go in on later streets if you plan to chase that flush.

Not trying to pick on you, but it seems like you're using some very optimistic math.

Late stages when lots of players are 'limping'??? What mtts are you referring to because the ones I play in it is the exact opposite.
Limping QJs, 65s, etc. in EP in late levels is a HUGE spew. Do I really need to explain why?

There's only a 10.994% chance of flopping a 'flush draw' when holding two suited cards.
I'd read tenbob's posts here... tourney play is much more about stack sizes, position & playing the players. Also, in later levels (or even in the 'doldrum' stage... although I'm really not sure what stage of the tourney this is?) we're more typically looking at stack sizes when raising (ie. if there's plenty of resteal stacks who have postion on us.. ie. 14-22bb's, we should think about tightening our opening range... hands that we're willing to call the resteal shoves with), looking for good spots to resteal shove ourselves.. or 3bet an LP when we figure villain has room for a fold, etc. etc. Limping & calculating % chance of getting lucky to me sounds like over-thinking in the wrong direction. Maybe pick up some decent reading material for MTT play?.. ie. Winning Poker Tournaments - One Hand At A Time Vol. 1 & 2 are both excellent reads (no other NLHE MTT book even comes close imo).