That is exactly what I thought after I posted it.

Also, who is the genius that misspelled genius?

What is your min raising pair for UTG?

Your statments make sense, and are logical, but I think TT and 99 are in the transition zone.

I probably would raise TT but not 99. I can't say that rasing TT is "right" and that 99 is "wrong" though.

I would raise TT and 99 UTG so that I can try to see a flop for what I want to bet, not what someone else wants to bet. If I get any action back at me, I would seriously consider letting it go, maybe calling depending on any earlier reads.

__________________
Nimvin
"I bet how much?!"

IMO, raising preflop with 99 or TT UTG will almost always command a continuation bet. An overcard is going to hit the flop 80/70 percent of the time, so it doesn't make sense to me to raise pf and check/fold to any over (unless the flop is something like AKQ). So I think raising is OK, but you should have a stack that will support the continuation bet.

__________________
"There is a good chance I gave you a very bad description of something that doesn't work."

Wow, never has so much been written about so little . . . the cornflakes, that is!

This early in a SNG, I don't raise anything I'm not willing to take all the way (e.g. KK, AA, QQ). Even if I had JJ here, I'm just limping to hit a set.

The bottom line is that the amount of chips you're going to pick up when you win in a walk or you take down the pot with a continuation bet on the flop doesn't justify a raise early in a SNG UTG with any hand you won't go all in with. While I have seen the occasional maniac reraise all in with an underpair like 66 (what is it about 66 and 77 that seems so mesmorizing to these guys?), most of the time you're going to be a coinflip at best, and one foot out the door at worst (against higher pairs), which always (IMO) requires folding PF.

Just limp, then call a raise if you can close the betting and are getting your odds to hit a set (remember to inflate the odds to something like 9 or 10:1 because you're out of position).

Beav: I agree 99/TT is the transition and it would depend largely on the table and definately on the blinds relative to stacks when I would raise. Certainly for the first half of a SnG I'm limping JJ utg or ep.

I agree almost entirely with Jason and I won't raise much early on that I'm not prepared to go allin with HOWEVER I will make very small raises with AQ (3xbb ish) and 99-JJ in mid-late position in order to avoid being seen as a total rock and to isolate the early maniac whose callin an allin with Ax on an Ayy flop

(Edit: Just to add I'm talking SnG here, my MTT requirements are completely different, but then so are the objectives)

I think that's usually me.

__________________
I'm CDO. It's like OCD, but everying is in order just like it should be.

99 is probably my lowest raising pair UTG.

I don't agree with Jason on the "don't raise early with anything you wouldn't go allin with" idea.

I'm raising these 9s, if somebody pushes I'm folding. With the blinds so low relative to my stack I can make these raises without fearing becoming pot commited. I make plenty of raises early in SnGs without hands that are "allinable".

Wow, playing JJ for set value. That is nuts.

I lot of this stuff depends on the SnG format and level, but I would commit all my chips with JJ in any SnG I have ever played. JJ=allin.

For the UB SnGs like Rog plays, I play closer to my ring game strategy because the format allows it.

Once the blinds get larger I'm more than happy to push JJ, or 66 for that matter but early on I don't need the coinflips, I'd rather limp JJ and take it from there. I laid down QQ to a reraise yesterday in the first round of a SnG (the guy showed his Aces and I did indeed type in "I can dodge bullets baby").