Limping in spots

BankItDrew's posts in one of my stats threads made me start thinking about limping in spots that I don't already limp in, and that's really the motivation for bringing this up. Also, some posts with ISF and others have had me thinking along similar lines before. I wouldn't be surprised if this is also tied into the amount of tables I'm usually playing, but here we go.

The main example of the spot I'm concerned with the most right now goes like something close to this. Say it's 9-handed with 100bb effective stacks and I'm in the cutoff seat. It's folded to the player 3 seats off the button who open limps, and then it's folded to me.

The majority of hands that I play here I've been playing for a raise. After a lot of thought and looking at hand histories from myself and others, I'm starting to have other ideas. I'm not sure yet if these ideas have a higher or lower EV how I've mostly been playing before, but I'm sure they could add to my game in some way, which is the point of bringing all of this up.

Say I have K8o, the limper is 20/8/1.5 and the blinds are both tight. To me, this is a clear spot for a raise if we decide to play it. I think so because our hand doesn't play very well multi-way and we have a good chance of picking up the pot right here. If our raise is called, we have the initiative and position with a somewhat decent high-card hand, which I think is enough to make this at least 0EV in spots that we're called.

However, what if we have 53s, the limper is 30/5/2.5, and both of the blinds are decent TAggs? I think that my standard play here is to fold, but what about limping behind instead? Our hand plays fairly well multi-way, and we'll have at the very least good position against aggressive players. I won't dive into any math here, but with our positional advantage, I think we can make a +EV situation out of most any draw that we pick up against these players. Thoughts?

Now bigger SCs and PPs I've also been playing for a raise against one or two limpers and have been limping behind against two or three or more limpers. In a way it feels like it would be a better decision to limp behind with smaller PPs (something like 22-55 at least) and to limp behind with most SCs (although I think I'd prefer to raise T9s and up in most cases).

At the very least, changing how I take on these spots would allow me to increase my VP$P against opponents who likely rely on their HUD stats a lot more than they should, making me appear to be not quite so tight (14-14.5 VP$IP and 13 or so PFR). It would also serve to space out my VP$IP and PFR numbers since they've seemed to run very closely together for the past couple of months.

This ties in a lot with spots where I should just complete the SB behind limpers but I'd rather save that for another time and just focus on the hands where our positional advantage will be greatest.

Any thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? =P

Interesting idea and something I have been thinking of a lot as well (and still do). Especially for low stakes where players are generally very passive preflop and bad postflop (mostly calling stations with TP or MP)

1. From a general point of view a very simple way of exploiting those habits seems seeing flops cheap with marginal hands that can turn into big ones. Mostly small SC's/1-gappers/2-gappers and small PP's, maybe Axs.

2. Another way is raising premium hands only and sethunt and get paid when you hit.

3. From experience I say it is not a good idea to rely on FE a lot. So raising limpers like a maniac and c-betting tons of flops and even double barreling makes you spew way too much.


That leaves me with the following conclusions:
- At low stakes playing like a nit is definately +EV and without postflop skills like a +-200NL players, seems more +EV than playing around 25/20, imo.

- Playing like a nit has 2 advantages; you aren't spewing with marginal hands and relying on FE which you don't have AND you take advantage of the general calling station habits.

- Playing like a nit also has 2 disadvantages. First it's boring and because we see so many bad players we want to play more hands. Second one is it only takes advantage of 1 bad habit from the general table condition (CS), not from the other (passiveness).


So to take full advantage, we want to play more hands than a nit, imo.
1. Opening up our raising range a lot does not seem to be the best way, although position could matter a lot here and I have trouble backing this up with fundamentals. This just seems from experience.

2. Because most villains raising range is very tight, opening up our calling range much doesn't seem to be the key either. Maybe Axs because they'll overplay TP when we have 2P or flush, or underpair vs our TP. I haven't experimented with this.

3. This leaves limping as an option. I have to admit I haven't experimented much with it, because I'm stuck in this being agressive preflop / I'm ahead of their range / don't give free cards / I have position / I am a better postflop player - mindset. That probably isn't a bad thing at all, especially when the plan is to play low/medium stakes in the future. But looking at the specific table conditions of micro stakes, imo there has to be a way/ways to fully exploit it.


Another tought I have is limping behind with unsuited connectors. Players are usually very afraid of flushes and therefor do not pay you of much when you hit. So chasing flush draws with marginal odds is often not veryvery profitable.
Straight draws are another thing though. First because they are less obvious and second because villains will often have a TP/MP type of hand when you have your straight, and they will pay you off with it.


I am looking forward to a discussion about (some of the points) in this thread.

First, I appreciate you taking the time to post in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minSim

Interesting idea and something I have been thinking of a lot as well (and still do). Especially for low stakes where players are generally very passive preflop and bad postflop (mostly calling stations with TP or MP)

---

The problem is that I'm dealing with trying to open up a bit at 200nl full ring where most players aren't all that terrible preflop or postflop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minSim

3. From experience I say it is not a good idea to rely on FE a lot. So raising limpers like a maniac and c-betting tons of flops and even double barreling makes you spew way too much.

---

I completely disagree. Against a good portion of loose/passive players, raising their preflop limp and picking it up on the flop when they happen to call is very profitable, even with hands as bad as Kxo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minSim

That leaves me with the following conclusions:
- At low stakes playing like a nit is definately +EV and without postflop skills like a +-200NL players, seems more +EV than playing around 25/20, imo.

---

I don't know of anyone who plays profitable at 25/20 at full ring. I'm not sure if it's possible to do so. In my opinion, playing like a nit is not as profitable as opening up your game and playing more hands against players who you have an advantage against, whether it's in skill, position, or whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minSim

- Playing like a nit has 2 advantages; you aren't spewing with marginal hands and relying on FE which you don't have AND you take advantage of the general calling station habits.

- Playing like a nit also has 2 disadvantages. First it's boring and because we see so many bad players we want to play more hands. Second one is it only takes advantage of 1 bad habit from the general table condition (CS), not from the other (passiveness).

---

Playing like a nit makes a lot of your hands play basically face up and it's hard to get paid with your good hands. If you're playing against a lot of really bad players, it can be +EV, but it won't be as +EV as opening up your game and playing more hands in position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minSim

So to take full advantage, we want to play more hands than a nit, imo.
1. Opening up our raising range a lot does not seem to be the best way, although position could matter a lot here and I have trouble backing this up with fundamentals. This just seems from experience.

---

One of the biggest breakthroughs in my game was when I starting raising more hands in position. I think that this is the first spot that nits should work on when trying to improve their game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minSim

2. Because most villains raising range is very tight, opening up our calling range much doesn't seem to be the key either. Maybe Axs because they'll overplay TP when we have 2P or flush, or underpair vs our TP. I haven't experimented with this.

---

It depends very much on the villain. In general, I'm hardly ever calling a raise against a single person with Axs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minSim

3. This leaves limping as an option. I have to admit I haven't experimented much with it, because I'm stuck in this being agressive preflop / I'm ahead of their range / don't give free cards / I have position / I am a better postflop player - mindset. That probably isn't a bad thing at all, especially when the plan is to play low/medium stakes in the future. But looking at the specific table conditions of micro stakes, imo there has to be a way/ways to fully exploit it.

---

I don't see what trying to be a better post-flop player has to do with limping in certain spots. If you have position, then you can apply all of that to limped pots as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minSim

Another tought I have is limping behind with unsuited connectors. Players are usually very afraid of flushes and therefor do not pay you of much when you hit. So chasing flush draws with marginal odds is often not veryvery profitable.
Straight draws are another thing though. First because they are less obvious and second because villains will often have a TP/MP type of hand when you have your straight, and they will pay you off with it.

---

Limping behind with unsuited connectors will always be less profitable than limping behind with suited connectors. Also, if you play your hands in a way that disguises your hand strength, then you'll get paid a lot more often when you hit your big draws. You can get paid with a TP/MP type of hand when you hit a flush draw as well if you don't always play it like a total nit.

I do agree that it's easier to see when a flush draw completes on the flop than when a straight draw completes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minSim

I am looking forward to a discussion about (some of the points) in this thread.

---

Thanks for your reply, and I look forward to further discussion.

spoon,

first i will say that, like Drew, i believe certain "multi-way holdings" are supposed to be seeing the cheapest flops possible. 57s, 22, A2s are a couple of examples. they hit big hands/draws on the flop and many, many customers is what you want. well, as many as possible. if it is clear you arent going to drive off customers, and you dont particularly care to, then, raising these up is a small mistake, imo. you dont want to take 57s into a HU flop with a player you "isolated." 57s is not an isolation hand.

i have been saying this for two years. trying to tell posters to "hide behind limpers." not with JJ. not with KTo. but, with hands that you want many players in the pot along with you. caveat: if you notice, however, that "hiding" isnt encouraging others to limp, for example you are still seeing 3 way hands, you need to go back to raising these up. seeing a flop 3 ways with 57s is almost as stupid as isolating with it, imo. you want to get from a table what it will allow you to take. that gets accomplished, obviously, in different ways.

however, notice we are NOT saying to open-limp. if the table folds to me, and i have 57s on the button, i am not limping it. hell, if i decide to play it from ep (for whatever reason), i am NOT limping it. any hand we open, comes in for a raise...95% of the time.

i used to catch so much flack for this, but...

- it keeps the pots small with your speculatives, until YOU want to build the pot with the advantage.
- it keeps in valuable customers that you would drive off with a raise.
- it gives others an actual chance to hit something they will pay off with.

you will notice, however, that your stats may change a bit. and you may notice others, at 200NL, adjusting to that.

you will start to run more 16/8 instead of 16/13. you will be limping more; therefore, your pfr numbers should drop in regards to the percentage of vpip, or the ratio. this is not a bad thing, in full ring, imo. if you run 20/15 or 20/10, i dont think there's much of a difference, unless you dont realize what the "thinkers" will do as a reaction to you.

they should:
- start raising your limps almost automatically...which is why we look to do this with other limpers in the pot. villain will be WAY less inclined to raise you if he sees someone else has limped in front of you...unless he has something REAL.
- start limping behind along with you. post flop this SHOULD give you the advantage again. they will open up more than you, and carry hands too far when you will drop the crap that misses the flop.
- if they dont open up in these spots with you, they will miss easy opportunities to hit deceptive flops and make some money. they will still be stuck in a one dimensional game.

i have never understood the floggings i have taken when it comes to "hiding behind limpers." it just makes sense. and, now that spoon, drew and some others are starting to see the light, maybe some others will open their eyes...and minds...to see that its the best way to see lots of flops CHEAPLY with the hands that are supposed to be seeing cheap flops. dont raise for the sake of raising just because you want to cbet the flop. actually THINK about what may be the better play. and which opponents you need to make which play against. (you want a way to take some variance out of your game? start limping your sc's and marginals instead of isolating with them because you read an article on aggression.)

that said, this is NOT something i would put into my 6max game, unless the tables have proven they are passive, too. and, even then, you need to pick your spots. at 200NL, i can only assume you dont get a lot, if any, limped pots that make it to a flop 3-4 way.

Spoonitnow, I missed that you are were referring to the small stakes full ring games. I haven't played FR in over a year, so I cannot comment to that specifically.

I was indeed referring to the typical 6-max micro games where I play, 25NL and 50NL mostly. This makes a big difference indeed, because I expect a 200NL player, either FR or 6-max, being at least decent postflop. Most players I was referring to are not.

I'll comment on some of your points, though I think I'll have to start a new thread about the table conditions I was referring to as it's just a complete different story.

I agree there are type of limpers that 1.limp/fold a ton, or 2.limp/call and fold flop a ton. Of course it is very profitable to raise them. You cards don't really matter a lot here though, as these players fold so much that raising any 2 can be profitable. Even in these conditions it COULD be that limping behind with SC's and play a multiway pot can be more +EV instead of raising them and be headsup, but very likely raising a ton against them is just best.

We agree that nitting it up is not the most +EV style when you have an advantage. Opening up a range does not necessarily mean opening up your raising range though.
We can call more or limp more as well. Also even if we do want to open up our raising range, imo there has to be a lot more thought out than just putting in some more SC's. This is also a very interesting subject imo, but off topic so I'll let it rest.

I agree opening up in late position is the first thing a nit should do. But it's only the first step. I for example play 16/14 with a steal attempt of >30% so there isn't really room for more late position opening. I have to open up my game in another way.

The thing about the mindset; I meant I have a standard TAG mindset. So when I see a limper, the first thing I want to do is raise him because I know what the advantages are of raising and see the oppertunity arise.
But I am beginning to believe there are conditions where limping behind is the better play, which is counterintuitive to the TAG mindset and therefor hard to understand or believe.

Of course your are right SC's are always more profitable to play than UC's. The big difference about 200NL FR or 6max 25NL comes up again here, so I'll let that rest as well.

Chopper you just totally agreed with me on like 95% of what you just said.

FWIW I think a PFR% in FR under 10% is unhealthy regardless of how you play. I'm thinking more of getting to a 17/13-18/14 stats range right now instead of such a wide gap between VP$IP and PFR. I'm not really thinking about limping behind on any hands I currently raise after limpers, I'm talking about adding hands that I exclusively limp with that are much more marginally +EV and player dependent, like maybe limping behind one limper with 64s.

Also, in spots where you're against one limper and you have something like 75s, I feel like the best move is dependent more on the players in the hand than the cards you have. There are going to be spots where it's better to raise than limp, spots where it's better to limp than raise, and spots where it's just as good either way. I was hoping to get more discussion about when each choice might be best instead of a rant against aggressive play.

Strap-on ass sex. There, now maybe Fnord will join us. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Chopper you just totally agreed with me on like 95% of what you just said.

---

yeah, i knew i was agreeing. i thought the anti-aggression post would spark enough seething comments on its own. i never intended to disagree with what you were saying. you should get some pretty argumentative responses...just wait.

but, then again, you are shooting for 250k this year, and are multi-tabling 18 at a time. i dont think anyone in the beginner's forum will take you on out of fear.

copy-paste this in NL Strat or NLFR, and i bet you get better debate from regs. better yet, register a new account, make this your first post with it in NLFR and watch the debate begin...lol.

but, i'm not sure that limping behind ONE limper with 46s is such a great idea if you arent sure others will limp, too. 3-4 way is ok, but 5+ is better. then again, i dont know how many 5-way flops you see up there. i see them quite a bit. and, it makes 58s profitable sometimes...well, not really, but you see where i'm going with that.

ZOMG, i just realized this wasnt in the beginner's forum. :doh:

wow, sound the DUMBASS ALARM...we have a live one, boys.

Durka durka *rocks like a retard* :D

There's not many hands where I see more than 2 or 3 limpers, and if I'm in decent position in those, I'll limp behind with anything close. That's sort of why most of my emphasis has been on spots with 1 limper because that's the case I see very, very often.

Another factor that hit me earlier was play against medium stacks of 40-60 bb vs play of full stacks of about 80bb+. There was a hand where a guy around 13/2/3.5 limped in MP and I had a medium suited two-gapper on the button and it was folded to me. This particular villain had about 30-35bb so I decided to go ahead and fold. If he had a bigger stack, I probably would have called due mostly to his aggression and partly because his of likely range of hands.

yeah, i cant see giving him action with any gapper. if he hits TP on flop, he's looking to shove. villain needs to buy in deeper...fuckers!!

euph/fnord, where are you shorty dudes!!! (dont misinterpret that...lol)

I think if you take a hand that you would be folding 95% and make it more of an 80/20 fold/limp it might work. that way you aren't limping behind too often, making your hand pretty transparent and making it too tempting for someone else to attempt to scoop up the dead money.

I would imagine that raising to isolate an open limper would be better than limping behind when there are decent-to-good players in the blinds. You will have position, but seeing a flop against 1 (probably bad) player in a raised pot is almost always going to be more +EV than seeing a flop against 1 bad player and 2 good players in a limped pot.

if your opponent is going to be check-folding flops that he misses then it seems like a crime to let him do so cheaply. If he is calling a lot of flop bets with speculative hands then the limp behind has more merit.

I like to try to make my opponents make the biggest mistake possible while playing to my strengths. I am not good at making tight laydowns, most of my opponents fold too much. It is a bigger mistake to make a tight laydown in a bigger pot, and also a bigger mistake to make a loose call in a small pot.

Raise loose limpers in pos, not tight ones, but i like raising rather than limping most of the time.

When I saw that ISF had posted in this thread I almost had an orgasm. Then I saw it was a one-liner, and it was like a girl who gives amazing head but doesn't swallow -- kind of left me blue-balled. =P

I agree 100% with pgil and ISF and this is how I play now.

I think pgil hit it on the head though when he said

Quote:

---

I think if you take a hand that you would be folding 95% and make it more of an 80/20 fold/limp it might work. that way you aren't limping behind too often, making your hand pretty transparent and making it too tempting for someone else to attempt to scoop up the dead money.

---

That's really what I'm looking at adding to my game right now and what brought me to bring this up.

Thanks for the replies guys. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

At the very least, changing how I take on these spots would allow me to increase my VP$P against opponents who likely rely on their HUD stats a lot more than they should, making me appear to be not quite so tight (14-14.5 VP$IP and 13 or so PFR). It would also serve to space out my VP$IP and PFR numbers since they've seemed to run very closely together for the past couple of months.

---

Thoughts on what VP$IP/PFR numbers are considered "unexploitable" in FR? The trouble with limping behind a lot is that it's easy to start running 18/9-ish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warpe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

At the very least, changing how I take on these spots would allow me to increase my VP$P against opponents who likely rely on their HUD stats a lot more than they should, making me appear to be not quite so tight (14-14.5 VP$IP and 13 or so PFR). It would also serve to space out my VP$IP and PFR numbers since they've seemed to run very closely together for the past couple of months.

---

Thoughts on what VP$IP/PFR numbers are considered "unexploitable" in FR? The trouble with limping behind a lot is that it's easy to start running 18/9-ish.

---

Game theory tells us that everything but optimal play can be exploited in one way or another, and my best guess is that optimal VP$IP is between 14 and 17 and optimal PFR is between 12 and 15. That's a somewhat broad range, but that's how it goes.

After much thought on the limping topic, I'd like to clarify something. At the moment at least, I'm not very concerned with limping in many spots that I'm already raising. Mostly, I'm thinking about spots that I currently fold in that I could change to a mix of folding and calling.