KQ before the flop

[zinzir]

This is what Harrington says about playing KQ before the flop with no raise or call in front of you:

1. In a tough game fold both KQs and KQo in early position.

In a weaker game:

2. With KQs raise 50% of the time and call 50% of the time.

3. With KQo call 50% of the time and fold 50% of the time.

While points #1 and #2 make sense, I don't know what to make out of #3. I don't see any benefit from the 50-50 split between calling and folding, under the same circumstances. If calling has a +EV than I would call all the time, if not fold all the time.

If #2 50-50 split makes sense in the name of balance, there is no balance in #3 where opponents never get to see you folded KQo.

Am I missing something here, guys? :ciao:

 

[pablo lima]

with KQ I only pay the bets I never raise

 

[300HPGOD]

Is Dan talking about a limit game or a no limit game? The 50% call (or limp) as an open seems like he is talking about limit instead of no limit. If is he advocating a limp in a no limit game then the book he wrote is showing its age. As far as your question about why the 50% do this and 50% do the opposite, Harrington is big on balance which in certain games is a necessity and others its something you dont even have to worry about. Balance is bigger with the poker players of the past as they would go to their cardroom and play against the same people all the time. With online poker, that is much less of a worry since our player pools are large.

Think of the 50% that is talking about calling or folding in terms of C betting. We are not always c betting when we have it and we are always not c betting when we dont have it. This is due to balance since otherwise you could call someones raise every time and when they C bet you fold and when they check you bet. So there is some merit to being balanced and doing different things at different times with the same holding but a lot of that should be player dependent and not look at the seconds hand of your watch as he is big on.

Don't get me wrong either, I am a fan of action Dan but I just think some of the stuff he used and worked well back in the early 2000s are a little obsolete now since the game is evolving every day.

 

[zinzir]

Is Dan talking about a limit game or a no limit game? The 50% call (or limp) as an open seems like he is talking about limit instead of no limit. If is he advocating a limp in a no limit game then the book he wrote is showing its age. As far as your question about why the 50% do this and 50% do the opposite, Harrington is big on balance which in certain games is a necessity and others its something you dont even have to worry about. Balance is bigger with the poker players of the past as they would go to their cardroom and play against the same people all the time. With online poker, that is much less of a worry since our player pools are large.

Think of the 50% that is talking about calling or folding in terms of C betting. We are not always c betting when we have it and we are always not c betting when we dont have it. This is due to balance since otherwise you could call someones raise every time and when they C bet you fold and when they check you bet. So there is some merit to being balanced and doing different things at different times with the same holding but a lot of that should be player dependent and not look at the seconds hand of your watch as he is big on.

Don't get me wrong either, I am a fan of action Dan but I just think some of the stuff he used and worked well back in the early 2000s are a little obsolete now since the game is evolving every day.

Dan is talking about no limit tournaments.

I understand what you are saying about balance and I agree, but in my opinion it applies only to situation #2, where you balance raising and calling with KQo. That way, in the hands that go to showdown, sometimes you raised with KQo and sometimes you called with the same hand pre flop, so you keep your opponents guessing.

My problem is with #3. Where is the balance there? Half of the time calling and the other half folding KQo under the same circumstances is nonsensical to me. And it achieves no balance, because any hand that goes to showdown will be the same thing, KQo, how does that keep the opponents guessing?

 

[Delfino]

It's just a way to hide your hand. I don't think this make sense for micro stakes, but when you play with better players you should do that. KQo probably is not giving positive EV but you have to call sometimes so opponents can't rule it out from your hand when you for example bluff. For same reason you should sometimes play 72. It doesn't give positive equity by itself, but should give it back on other hands you play more often.

 

[zinzir]

It's just a way to hide your hand. I don't think this make sense for micro stakes, but when you play with better players you should do that. KQo probably is not giving positive EV but you have to call sometimes so opponents can't rule it out from your hand when you for example bluff. For same reason you should sometimes play 72. It doesn't give positive equity by itself, but should give it back on other hands you play more often.

I think you're right, that's what Harrington is saying. KQo in situation #3 has a slightly -EV, but we want our opponents to see us playing it often enough to always include it in our early position calling range. Yeah, that makes sense.
Thanks, I knew I was missing something there, now I understand

 

[thehangdude]

It is because there are more KQo hands than KQs. If you play KQo every time, you are playing that hand too many times compared to the rest of your range.

Out of the 16 KQ combinations, only 4 are suited while 12 are off suit. Cutting the off suit number in half helps you lead a better balanced range.

 

[619Leafs]

My theory with KQ. If action is tight, I would raise 2.5 to 3x 100% of the time.

If loose action either limp or fold. Limp to hopefully see a cheap flop with out losing too much chips or fold sometimes just to avoid action and lose chips.

 

[mkdrummey]

I used to watch a show here called Poker Night Live which was in a studio with 2 or 3 presenters, sometimes a pro or 2, analysing online games live. I remember one 4 hour programme they spent trying to come up with a saying to describe KQ and after a lot of talk settled on "King Queen rules in the land of the unraised pot"

For some daft reason I've kept that with me over 10 years later. Good advice or not. I guess over time I've lost with every possible hand so I can't say whether it's wise to fold KQ to any raise or not.

 

[NCDaddy]

Dan stresses randomization and position in his books. I assume you're reading the tournament books. Tournaments are more about survival and you can easily get in to trouble with unsuited KQ in early position. I get your question though and tend to agree with you.

 

[1nsomn1a]

Harrington's advice is a system of hands and you need to consider them together, if you consider each hand separately, you can find a lot of strange things, but the overall picture of everything gives us a balanced and not particularly predictable game.

I think in poker you need to play a template for a certain range and not specific hands, so it's hard to read your hand.

 

[Edgerik]

KQ is a good hand to open in late positions, if the Ace does not come out on the flop it becomes an excellent bluffing hand.

 

[Igor Popadyk]

I agree, to play this hand only in late positions and only if there was no action before me, or against very loose players