Middling hands

That chart looks a bit old fashioned. These days generally you're going to open up with more suited hands. Certainly you can open all suited Aces from MP and hands like A4s and QJs can be opened from anywhere, while suited Kings are a lot trendier than they used to be. On the other hand, opening 55 from EP is very marginal.

Don't get dragged into their game. Hands like K8o and QTo are snap folds from HJ with limpers in front. As you say, their limping ranges can include a lot of stronger hands so you're going to be dominated a lot. Also your position isn't great. You could consider overlimping those sorts of hands on the button - or the occasional isoraise - but you aren't missing out on much by just folding them always.

If you were talking about K8s or QTs then it's a much trickier question and from HJ there would be good arguments for raising, overlimping or folding and which is best might depend on your own particular game environment, particularly the players to your left. But if in doubt then it's never going to be a major mistake to fold and move on, especially if you're unsure if your ability to outsmart your opponents postflop.

Thanks so much for the quick response!

Some follow-up questions:

1. When you say the chart is a bit "old fashioned," can you recommend a more "modern" one that you feel reflects current methods?

2. So your feeling is that as a general rule, hands likeK8o or QTo should be folded when there are limpers in front (exceptions being some situational parameters)? Just making sure I'm fully understanding.

3. Would you say something like 68s or 97s are similar? I find suited gappers rarely hit, so I never raise them.

As a way to fight back against these wide-ranging limpers, one tactic I have started to employ is to limp every unraiseable hand from the button and cut-off positions. My rationale for this is that I am 1:50 to hit two pair on the flop. If I'm playing a 1/3 game, it costs me $150 to limp hands which means I need to win at least $150 to break even which I easily do with a flopped two-pair. I also have other equities in trips (1:73) straights w/connector (1:76) and flushes (1:118). So by my math, if I limp every weak hand from the button and cut-off and I make it to the flop, then I'm going to hit these hands periodically enough to do some damage. I have been testing this theory for about two weeks and it has made me quite a bit of money relative to the investment.

What do you think?

If you're over-limping the CO or BN you need to be considering the likelihood of a squeeze from the blinds (or the BN if you're limping CO).

Generally, you can also consider whether raising over multiple limpers will significantly isolate the field. If you can consistently create a heads-up or 3way pot IP with a hand like QTo by raising then I'd say it's better than limping. Then you have to be honest about how confident you are playing a hand like QT as part of your overall CO or BN range (e.g. do you know when to bet the flop and/or turn and for what sizings?).

If you find that multiple players are limp-calling raises, then aside from experimenting with your sizing, or being cognisant of those who limp-call compared to those who limp-fold, I'd be wary of playing a hand like QTo. Suited Aces and low pocket-pairs, maybe some suited connectors are generally better as limps in multiway pots because of greater potential for achieving the nuts.

If you search these forums for threads on "limping ranges" you might find some useful info. Generally it's scorned upon to limp but the theory does shift and is perhaps more game-dependent these days. It might well be that in the particular game you're playing a limping range is +EV if applied strategically. But don't forget that most want to get involved in a pot and are looking for any green-light to do so, notably in live 9-handed games, which tend to be slow. If you're looking at 74o on the BN and thinking that you might be able to stack AK if the flop comes K74, then you probably should be focusing on something else about the game.

Thanks for another great response, TJO! First of all, how do you feel about moxterite's comment that the hand chart I'm using is antiquated? Would you agree? If so, can you point me in the direction of something more contemporary?

To your point about being worried about getting squeezed from the blinds/button, I always make it a point to put the LAGs to my right, otherwise that would be something to consider.

As far as trying to thin the field, my entire game is based on isolation and I'm very successful at it. For example, I find that when players at a table are open raising, their bets are typically pot-building in nature and often do not do much to knock out other players. Whenever I open raise, it's always with the intent of thinning things out to only 1-2 players. I find it strange that most players don't do this. My rationale is that if someone open raises $15 and they get 5 callers they now have to out maneuver 5 other opponents. If I bet $75 and get one caller, I've drawn in the same amount money into the pot but the difference is that I am battling against one player and the fight is on my terms. Of course the counter-argument is that I've had to risk $75 while someone else is only risking $15, but players are nervous when they're in a hand with me because of the increased stakes. The other benefit is that I'm not open raising on the strength of my hand. I'm solely raising on an amount that I think will only leave 1-2 players. This means that no one can use my bet sizing to range my hands.

Again, where it's tricky are these middle-strength hands where it's not clear to me how to open them but your advice is sound. Maybe I solely focus on the profiles of the players who limped and those yet to act after me and then either fold or I pull the trigger to occasionally go for it. I suppose an added benefit is that there is some value in playing a wider range and showing that I'm capable of it.

Lastly, my button/cut-off strategy of limping every weak hands from those positions has been boosting my returns surprisingly well. The other night I limped 63o from the button and the board came 458. Everyone checked and the 7 came on the turn. With an ace on the river I managed to get paid well at the end. Remember that I've got position, so even if I miss, I can also go for the bluff if I smell weakness.

You're looking for some chart that's going to improve your RFI range, but this is really putting a patch on a boat with numerous leaks. You've learned that playing LAG seems to be profitable for you, although it's hard to tell how much of this might be variance, especially given your habit of raising too much preflop with value hands and over-limping with garbage.

You may be beating the terrible players in your game, but you really need to work on your fundamentals if you want to beat decent players.

Don't be dissuaded by Always Fondling's tone, but the reality is that what he's saying is genuine advice. 63o is not a middling hand and the example you cite is just some good luck that you can't rely on over a decent sample. Imagine in this example if you chose to limp a better, more connected "middling hand" such 65, 76, or 87 --- you'd have much more playability and opportunity for value betting or bluffing various run-outs. It seems like you're playing in a standard 1/3 game, that is, where players limp often preflop. Rather than focusing too much on charts, aside from using them as an initial road-map, I'd suggest a focus on frequencies. So, theoretically, let's say, for example, you can RFI 35% from BN, 30% from CO, 25% from HJ, 20% from LJ, 15% from MP, 12% from UTG1 and 10% from UTG. That means out of the 1326 possible hand combinations you can RFI 464 from BN. In order to get to this total of 464 start with pocket pairs (78), suited broadways (40), suited non-broadways Aces (32), non-suited broadways (40) and so on. In other words, build your own chart, but base this chart on theoretically sound frequencies for each position.

Then you have to acknowledge that these are "Raise-First-In" frequencies only, and, you'll find that, especially in the later positions, you are rarely raising first-in. This is where it gets tricky and often players start to think about a limping range, but I suggest that before you do so, apply this rule-of-thumb adjustment: if you're on the BN facing 1 limp use a CO frequency (i.e. 30% instead of 35%); if facing 2 limps use a HJ frequency (i.e. 25% instead) and so on. For example, if you're on the BN and 3 players have limped you could narrow your raising range to 265 instead of 464 combos. After including all pocket pairs, suited broadways, suited Aces and non-suited broadways (190 combos) there are 75 combos left (I'd start with some suited Kx, non-suited Aces, suited connectors, etc). Hopefully, you'll include combos that are customised to the type of game you play, where you have an understanding of players' limping ranges and therefore an intuitive grasp of what combos do well against those ranges (for example A8o may not do well because players limp AJ, so you might prefer to include 76s instead, but if players are limping lots of better 7x or 6x, then you might look elsewhere).

I honestly believe an exercise such as the above, while seeming like a lot of work, should make a significant difference. Importantly, it might help you understand whether a limping range is even necessary in your game. You could also just pay for a subscription to a poker course such as Uri Peleg's, who uses charts and solvers, but talks about how these need to be customised to varying game conditions and players types.

Hello AF and thanks for your feedback!

I'll be the first one to admit that my approach is unorthodox, but it leverages some of the fundamentals of the game to my favor, or at least that has been my experience thus far. Keep in mind that being a TAG was always the way to play and then LAG play was deemed the most effective. Next comes GTO, so the moral of the story is that Texas hold 'em is a continually evolving game. What I can tell you is that I approach this game from a very statistical angle.

For example, DrTJO wrote: "If you're looking at 74o on the BN and thinking that you might be able to stack AK if the flop comes K74, then you probably should be focusing on something else about the game." Apparently he (and maybe others) feel that a position like that would be poor for my two pair...? The way I look at is that 74o on a board like that against AKo I've got 75% equity against 25%, so yes, I would be looking to take down that hand with some decent value.

As far as overbetting the flop, the best advice I ever received from a pro player (Nathan Williams) was, "No matter what kind of cash game you're playing, 1/2, 1/3, 2/5, find the RFI number that knocks everyone out of the hand except 1 or 2 players." Once I started doing that, it was like magic. I can't tell you how often players fold stronger hands to what I have preflop and how much more easy it is to take it all down afterwards.

When I play in the casino at the 1/3 or the 2/5, I walk away netting money at around 80% of the sessions. In some of these home games where the "terrible players" frequent, that's where it's actually more difficult. My win rate for the year is around 60% when I play at those, primarily due to these contractors with lots of cash who play a crazy-wide range of hands and end up hitting on the occasional bizarre bet.

No they feel your odds of getting the desired two pair vs TPTK are small enough that you lose money even if you stack V when it occurs.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I would counter that it's not so cut & dry like that. As we all know, there are an extraordinary number of variables in this game.
For example, plenty of people stay in too long when they have top pair. Also, when I say I need to win $150 to break even when using this tactic, I'm not including the times I will hit the gutter straight (as I did when I first tried this), a single pair that may be good to the river or when I feel I can bluff at the hand and take it down.

I would also point out that

https://gizmodo.com/superhuman-ai-crushes-poker-pros-at-six-player-texas-1836257695

Gizmodo

‘Superhuman’ AI Crushes Poker Pros at Six-Player Texas Hold'em

We should all keep an open mind :-)