The OMC LRR from EP - always AA/AK and never AK/JJ?

At this non-short stack size, facing OP's quite large raise size, I would definitely lean to KK+ only for this guy. I mean, I'm trying to think what LRR me would do with JJ/AK here, and honestly I've folded here against anyone that I would remotely consider tight (which is perhaps incorrect, but I'm just sayin' that's what I've done). Give me a smaller stack versus a smaller / active open, yeah, my LRR range is much wider. But a lot of LRR nits are risk adverse especially when playing deeper (I speak from my own personal experience).

GnitinsightG

Absolutely. There are some people capable of making this play with a wide range. I'm one of them. But when the OMC who folds everything for hours on end makes it, I'd have to see the cards to believe it's anything other than AA. I don't even think he's willing to risk it with KK.

No you can’t, because sometimes people who limp/reraise actually have enough brains to change their play after the whole table sees them do it (or to never raise from the same configuration that they limped from earlier).

This assumes that people do the same thing all the time.

Like, say OMC limp-raises AA from UTG, but what does he do with AA in MP? What does he do with KK, AK, QQ, JJ, etc? How do we know next time he is dealt AA in UTG, he doesn't just open with it? What do we do if he limps everything, and never open raises, like Gobbledygeek?

That's part of why it's worth wondering if he ever limp-raises anything other than AA, perhaps especially if our table image is that we're raising too often from LP. If we're aggro, does he ever make this play with AK?

The answer to your last paragraph is contained in Tomark’s first sentence which he did not emphasize: it’s AA/KK *enough of the time* that you can fold, which is to say, enough of the time to push your equity too low to continue.

Do you realise you're contradicting yourself multiple times here? "Opening a wide range and relentlessly punishing limpers" does not compute with "not folding to many 3bets", at least for your sake I hope it doesn't. And it doesn't compute with "I want them to think I'm nitty" either. Not at all.

Not really.

I'm not folding to MANY 3B's. That's not the same as not folding to ANY 3B's. I'm mostly raising from position, with playable hands, a deep stack, and a reasonable skill edge. No reason I should be over-folding to 3B's.

Unlike most low stakes players, I'm rarely limping. I play raise or fold from almost every position. I go through long stretches where I'm just folding everything. So if I raise a few hands, it's plausible that I was card dead when I was folding, and just started picking up cards.

Low stakes players who limp a lot tend to only raise big hands, and likewise tend to think other players do the same, such that whenever I raise, they think it's likely I have a big hand. If they doubted it, they could 3B me light, but that rarely happens.

Insta-mucking to a 3B makes it look like I was getting out of line. Allowing opponents to know I raised with QQ shows I wasn't.

The population of players who have L/RRed have a raising range that is more capped than the population of players who have not L/RRed.

You dont need them to limp AA KK at a 100% frequency for them to have weakened their raising range, and you dont need every player to continue their L/RR strategy after the first time in order to adjust to the population. Reads are about playing the odds, and yes, some people buck the trend and change it up and make money off that, thats true of every read.

Im not recommending a 100% 3 betting range or anything. Heck, for the typical player, i think if you just 3 bet at GTOs frequency, that would be pretty “relentless” against an OMC (although I wouldnt be doing GTOs range, since we have no real reason to 3 bet A5s type hands since blocking AA is useless, youd wanna 3 bet like Qxs Jxs)

If someone takes what would normally be their opening range, and limps the entire range a certain percentage of the time and raises it the same percentage, and uses this mix with every single hand in their range, they are not “more capped” than if they never limp.

It is simply not sound logic to assume that someone who limps once or twice is weaker when they raise. It may turn out to be true for many people but it is not *necessarily* true.

If we see someone going for a limp-raise a lot, especially if the player "fits the type", then I agree that it tends to cap their range if they open raise from that same position (generally assuming it's EP - UTG-UTG1 or UTG2 at the latest).

There are exceptions, though. I'm one of them. I'll limp-raise based on what I see happening at the table, not based on my hand. I could do it with AA/KK or T2o. And if I do it once, I'm probably not doing it again any time soon, such that the next time I open from UTG, it could be AA/KK, and won't be T2.

The point I was making in my last response to Tomark is that I've seen OMC's who appear to understand their table image well enough that they are capable of getting out of line, enough for the table to be surprised by the OMC's hand at showdown. Before we insta-muck, it's worth wondering if he's ever making that play with something worse than AA/KK.

If we're playing a raise-or-fold strategy, rarely if ever limping in, at most just over-limping, never open-limping, and raising a lot from LP, I would think some OMC's are capable of adjusting, by expanding their 3B'ing range. And some might be cagey enough to see that a limp-3B from UTG is going to have more fold equity coming from an OMC than opening for a raise UTG in a loose-and-splashy game, where the first call starts a calling train, and he'll have to play his hand multi-way and OOP post-flop.

That's why I said I might believe V had AK if he tried to tell me he had JJ. I might believe he had TT, if I thought he was capable of poking his head out of his shell enough to gamble that I'd be opening light from LP behind multiple limpers. But when the weakest hand he can imagine himself having is AK, I don't think he's capable of even having KK.