I think re-raising KQ is going too far here.

Basically what you get is a 2/5/25 game where the loose raiser voluntarily posts a $25 blind--with some vague semblance of hand selection. Hence, I see no reason to re-raise any hands that you wouldn't raise in a normal game.

A fairly solid re-raising strategy would thus be JJ-AA and AK, but I also see no problem with restricting it to something like QQ-AA and AKs either (I was a bit undecided as to which hand selection to use there).

Obviously, if you're sitting to the player's right, you want to limp-re-raise on these rather than raise outright. I'm really surprized that Kenny doesn't like sitting to the right, as it really gives you automatic position PF--and even subsequently as well, if you have a loose raiser who's going to CB almost always (this guy didn't).

sitting to the left is better because post flop you can let him hang himself with all kinds of bad bets while you call down with your monster hand then pop him on the river

It seems to me that by that argument, raising KQ UTG in FR should be a winning play--isolating ideally one opponent or else winning the blinds uncontested.

And it should be a losing strategy limping with KQ in MP in cases where it is often multi-way. I feel sure that my limped KQ in MP is a winner in multi-way pots.

It just seems to me like you guys are forgetting too much about the rest of the table, which is the main reason I was looking at dominating hands. If you play KQ, you definitely DON'T want to hit your K vs. AK or your Q vs. AQ because it costs too much before you can get away from it. And in this situation, very few, if any, of the other players would lay down AK to a re-raise, and a lot would even play AQ, I'm pretty sure.

Yeah, as to hand selection, I was beginning to think the same thing--namely that 6max is having a lot of influence on people.

Interestingly, with 5 other players at the table, the domination risk on KQ goes down to 13.9%--compared, for example, to 11.2% on JJ with 8 other players at the table.

I read this is Cardplayer the other day by Alan Schoonmaker. I thought it was interesting because it overlapped with this topic. This article was called "Should you switch to No-Limit Hold'em? Part III

Loose-Aggressive Players (LAP)

Most discussions of position and styles focus primarily on LAP because they have so much impact on your results and emotions.

Your position relative to LAP, especially the most extreme ones (Maniacs), is even more important in NL than in limit.

In limit sit to their immediate left so they act before you do. Generally, you want to be to the left of loose players, whether they are aggressive or passive. You can raise and isolate them to exploit their tendency to play weak hands.

You want LAP to raise before you act, not afterwards. If you acted first, you may put in one bet, then another with a hand that you would not willingly play for two bets.

However, if someone is predictably loose-aggressive, sit to his right. That predictability can come from two factors:

• Being an utter Maniac who raises nearly every hand

• Telegraphing when he will fold, check, bet, or raise

Because many LAP — particularly Maniacs — lack patience and self-control, they often telegraph their intentions. In fact, they will occasionally act out of turn. You can fold marginal hands and check-raise and slow-play your strong ones.

In NL your decision is more complicated because the size of the bets and raises is so important. You need to win only a few large pots, and nobody builds bigger pots than a LAP, especially a Maniac. You therefore want to be to the immediate right of a LAP who frequently makes very large bets and raises, even if he is not a complete Maniac who raises all the time.

You can check or just call with big hands, hoping he will make a move, which will drive the rest of the table into you. They will often overplay their hands because they don’t respect his bets and reraises. Of course, you may slow-play, but be disappointed: He may just fold, check, or call. But you take that chance any time you slow-play, and he is more likely than anyone else to make a large bet.

If you do it many times, and he makes a move only a few times, but traps one or two others, they may be too pot-committed to get away from their hands when you make a large raise. In fact, they may have pushed all in before you have a chance to act.

Your chances of winning a monster pot go way up.

In addition, if you sit to the left of a Maniac, some other players — especially the better ones — will slow-play into him, then trap you between them. You may overplay a hand because you don’t respect the LAP’s bets or raises, but then find someone to his right pushing all in.

Finally, you will be last when he bluffs, and he may bluff very frequently. If you are to his left and suspect a bluff, but have someone behind you, you can’t call with a marginal hand. You would hate to snap off his bluff, but have someone overcall.

The only serious downside to sitting to his right is that you will often be raised when you want to play cheaply. For example, if you limp with pocket fours, hoping to get multi-way action, he may raise too much, knock out everyone else, and ruin the odds for you. This risk is much less important then the preceding advantages.

The bottom line is that you should sit to the left of LAP in limit, but to their right in NL.