raising with KQ at full table?

[anarchoi]

Hello,

Been reading HOH1 + HOH2 over and over again, yet theres especially one thing i just cant understand.
In HOH1 hes talking about starting requirements for a full table when no one has yet entered the pot.
He says :

Early position
With KQ suited or unsuited, fold in a tough game. In a weaker game with KQ suited, raise 50% of the time and call 50% of the time. With KQ offsuit, call 50% of the time and fold 50% of the time.
In middle position these hands (KQ, KJ and QJ) do a bit better. With KQ I would play in all middle positions, with a mix of 60% raises and 40% folds.
In late position I will be raising for all these hands to win the blinds.

Ok i understand the early position moves. But the middle position confuses me. Why does he wants to raise 60% and then FOLD on the rest?
It would make sense with 60% raise and 40% calls.....
The only reasonable solution i can think of, is its a spelling error, and was meant to be like i said.
Otherwise please enlighten me.
I would also like to hear your opini0ns on the raises with KQ. I like to limp in with KQ but im almost sure thats a leak in my game. According to Harrington it is.

/a

[vqc]

Hello,

Been reading HOH1 + HOH2 over and over again, yet theres especially one thing i just cant understand.
In HOH1 hes talking about starting requirements for a full table when no one has yet entered the pot.
He says :

Early position
With KQ suited or unsuited, fold in a tough game. In a weaker game with KQ suited, raise 50% of the time and call 50% of the time. With KQ offsuit, call 50% of the time and fold 50% of the time.
In middle position these hands (KQ, KJ and QJ) do a bit better. With KQ I would play in all middle positions, with a mix of 60% raises and 40% folds.
In late position I will be raising for all these hands to win the blinds.

Ok i understand the early position moves. But the middle position confuses me. Why does he wants to raise 60% and then FOLD on the rest?
It would make sense with 60% raise and 40% calls.....
The only reasonable solution i can think of, is its a spelling error, and was meant to be like i said.
Otherwise please enlighten me.
I would also like to hear your opini0ns on the raises with KQ. I like to limp in with KQ but im almost sure thats a leak in my game. According to Harrington it is.

/a

KQ is a bad hand.
In PP SNGs I dont play it at all in the first two levels.

[Fortune 500]

I think you're right.... it's a typo.

I too limp KQ from middle (might fold it in an aggro game) and raise it late.

I pretty much universally fold it early at a full table. It's just too problematic post flop.

[Sprayed]

I think he is saying when first to act he is either raising or folding in mp with these hands. He is not limping unless other limpers are already in. First to act it's better to raise than to limp.

[zenbitz]

MP = raise to steal blinds, limping give ups the initiative. In EP, you are just hoping to start a limp fest and flop nut/near nut draw or 2p. Also, if no one raises and a K or Q flops you have reason to believe your kicker is good.

This is HOH1... so it assumes very deep stacks for an SNG. Maybe first 1-2 blind levels only.

[anarchoi]

MP = raise to steal blinds, limping give ups the initiative. In EP, you are just hoping to start a limp fest and flop nut/near nut draw or 2p. Also, if no one raises and a K or Q flops you have reason to believe your kicker is good.

This is HOH1... so it assumes very deep stacks for an SNG. Maybe first 1-2 blind levels only.

seems that there are different opinions on this...

This seems to makes sense however. What about the raise in EP then?

/a

[Blinky]

You generally want to avoid open limping, though Harrington's text does seem a bit strange.

As for raising any KQ in EP? You are (or should be) unhappy when you're
1) reraised
2) flat called
and out of position... triple this for every person that calls/reraises behind you

Playing OOP in NLHE is already quite difficult. It's far harder in a raised pot.

Here's something I find useful to remember (forget the attribution so whoever knows the author - please provide the credit)

I will play
1. Good cards in good position
2. Good cards in bad position
3. Bad cards in good position

Do your best to avoid bad, or marginal cards in bad position (KQ in EP on a full table, deep stacks is a marginal hand).

[zenbitz]

To clarify... it could be a typo too... or merely some omissions.

First off - in EP he makes first distinctions between KQs and KQo. AND distinctions between weak and tough tables.

Second off - I would totally ignore HOH for SNG starting hands. He's way too conservative for any fast-blind game, plus they are a couple years out of tune with the reality of on-line SNGs. When they were written, I believe the games were MUCH donkier. Probably works super well for $5 SNGs, or $10-20 on smaller (read: lamer) sites.

Also, they are only relevant (as I said) in the green zone, which is only 1st two levels. once you hit yellow and orange, you must adjust severely.

[anarchoi]

Second off - I would totally ignore HOH for SNG starting hands. He's way too conservative for any fast-blind game, plus they are a couple years out of tune with the reality of on-line SNGs. When they were written, I believe the games were MUCH donkier. Probably works super well for $5 SNGs, or $10-20 on smaller (read: lamer) sites.

Now thats interesting. I am playing after his rules and im doing fine after nearly 400 $5 sngs.
But im considdering moving up to $10 so it would be interesting to hear from others if they agree HOH is no good for a slow paced SNG like PS where you start with 1500 chips and blind raise every 10 min.

/a

[Fortune 500]

I think Harrington works fine if you're patient and comfortable playing small ball in a deeper stacked SNG structure. I don't know how it would work in a turbo structure.

[zenbitz]

Second off - I would totally ignore HOH for SNG starting hands. He's way too conservative for any fast-blind game, plus they are a couple years out of tune with the reality of on-line SNGs. When they were written, I believe the games were MUCH donkier. Probably works super well for $5 SNGs, or $10-20 on smaller (read: lamer) sites.

Now thats interesting. I am playing after his rules and im doing fine after nearly 400 $5 sngs.

So I was right!

But im considdering moving up to $10 so it would be interesting to hear from others if they agree HOH is no good for a slow paced SNG like PS where you start with 1500 chips and blind raise every 10 min.

Hmmm... I have to say I was thinking of PS turbos & PP 800 chippers when I said HOH was too conservative. I would say that HOH is *more* likely to be appropriate for slow-paced SNGs rather than fast paced ones... so your post confuses me.

Just to back off a bit... what HOH doesn't do is tell you exactly how to widen your range as M goes down... so if you can do that it should be OK.


/a[/quote]

[vqc]

Ok i havnt read the posts that clearly but

HoH is better for Pstars 1500 non turbo SNGs than it is for PP SNGs

[GatorJH]

Ok i havnt read the posts that clearly but

HoH is better for Pstars 1500 non turbo SNGs than it is for PP SNGs

I totally agree with that. When you get 1500 chips to start you can be more patient and play according to the HOHO style.