Rec limpers vs. Competent limpers

A few quick thoughts here, as someone who rarely open limps, but will sometimes limp behind

Macro:
- Obviously all the advanced GTO stuff has worked out "never open limp", but most low stakes play so far away from optimal theory, that it's leaving huge sums not playing an exploitable strategy
- At a macro level, we all know if we play exactly the same way as everyone else at the table, then by definition we can't win in the long run, so how we differ in our limping strategy and/or our ability to navigate post flop is key
- I do think as you have said, we should delineate betwen open-limping and limping behind
- I know Sklansky/Malmouth's book "Small Stakes No-Limit Hold 'em: Help Them Give You Their Money" got some heat on here, but they do suggest some open limping, and while we may not agree, I think it's worth reading.
- Looking forward to GGs comments.

Micro (my thoughts, not gospel)
- Straddle and straddle size can play a role
- Limp/Reraise of premiums is a legit strategy against Bad LAGs
- Open Limping may be a way of keeping our implied odds better, small PPs, low suited Aces
- You gotta be hecka disciplined at folding things like top pair in multiway limped pots
- You gotta understand when to call a pre-flop raise
- In general, the better the table, the worse open limping or even limping behind is going to be as a strategy

I'm not sure if you have played online poker before, but if you had, then try using poker software like poker tracker and such. You'll find majority of your winnings are from hands where you have the initiative. As for reason, you either make money from your hand value or make money from aggression.

Limping is literally giving up initiative in hopes of seeing a cheap flop and hitting 2 pairs+. The thing is 9 out of 10 times you won't hit your 2 pairs+, which means they will lose your small amounts of money over time. The times when you do hit, whether or not you get paid is questionable, sometimes you can even get coolered/suckered by other hands.

If table is really passive and will paid you off(fishes), limping is ok, but opening it up is more profitable.

When I see a limper, I might open with a looser range, why? If I get it headsup with the limper, it's literally printing money. Why? His range is weak, he's out of position, he plays face up.

This is perfectly fine in today's 1/2 and 1/3 games, as long as you have a post-flop advantage and know your opponents. I wouldn't do it until I had the players/game figured out, which should take only a few orbits.

* Low-suited connectors from early position (otherwise raise them from MP or LP)
* Weak suited aces from early position (otherwise raise them from MP or LP)
* Weak suited premiums from all positions
* All non-premium suited gappers from early position (otherwise raise from MP or LP)

tl/dr:

I currently think it's likely that preflop open raise size doesn't matter much at live 1-2, even if that raise size is 1bb (an open limp), it just changes how you get the money (and it might be easier or more fun to get it in certain ways).

But limping isn't GTO:

We know there's almost no open limping in theory (AIUI it does happen in some specific spots, Eg. giant ante, shove or call games).

If you are deviating from what you know is the correct play, then you are exploiting and are open to being exploited.

To be fair opening 4x, 6x, or even 8x is also bad in theory ... so it's not like the "don't limp" crowd is saying you should play GTO.
Eg. In GTO land the money comes from the blinds, in almost all 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3 games I've played it would better be described as "charging people to play bingo" or maybe "playing bingo better".

Caveat:

One problem is that doing it well will train you on a strategy that is much more difficult to use at most 2-5 games. Not that opening to 6x is the same as opening to 3x and getting 3bet way more often, but it's a lot closer and maybe more obvious how you adjust.

Elephant in the room:

By far the biggest problem people have is splitting their ranges preflop, so if you open limp _or_ open raise I'll label you a fish and I don't care if you wrote a book. Eg.

Player Andy has been open raising $8 all night and now open raises $16.
Player Barry has been open limping all night and now open raises $12.

..._very_ likely both players are strong, maybe even very strong, and it's often very simple to play against both players in both branches of the tree.
I would guess that more of the population of Barry's tend to "mix it up" (bad to mediocre attempts to balance their split ranges) more often, thus. making it slightly more difficult ... but that's more difficult than "very simple".

For personal data it's noteworthy to see someone consistently have 2 or 3 different open sizes in the same spots, maybe see it one out of every 200 players?
On the other side I've lost count of the number of times I've played at a 1-2 table and my $12 opens almost always get a call, and sometimes 4+ calls, but then some guy who has been limp/calling all night opens to $12 (or higher) and everyone snap folds and he has an emotion (sometimes it's happiness, go figure) about the fact his JJ+ got no callers.

Interestingly I don't think most players notice Andy's as quickly as Barry's, or don't adjust as fast. To be fair there are also reasons why people change their open size that isn't to do with the cards they hold.

GG doesn't split ranges, and you aren't better than GG.

First of all, thanks for all of the responses! To answer some of the statements:

- I feel that GTO is perfect when starting with opening hands since everyone is equal preflop and it's also perfect when you're head's up, but one of the big limitations of GTO is that it doesn't solve for limpers. We can try to interpolate what to do, but GTO doesn't describe how to act with limpers. It also doesn't account for multi-way situations...it's only head's up. We can do our best to deduce the ideal play, but computers haven't gotten there yet.

- Hitchens97, I agree completely with all of your Micro assessments. Maybe the most difficult one is to fold top pair when you hit it with a premium + suited rag. In that case, I feel it's all pot control and letting it go if there's a hint of someone having better.

- Dangomango, you're actually being generous with the idea that we might hit two-pair 9 our of 10 times. The odds are actually 2% or 1 in 50. Bottom line is that I agree with you that we can't count on that scenario (although it's a bonus when it does happen). I'm more interested when the suited connectors make a straight/flush or when a suited ace hits the nut flush. I've never played online poker, but it doesn't surprise me that initiative and aggression typically win the day. When I play at tables where there is no open limping, then that's my entire strategy whenever I open a hand. It's just that when you play with a table full of limpers who are either looking to trap with their limped KK or they do the same with 10 7s from MP, I find them extremely difficult to deal with. Again, they'll lose in the long run, but I'm always amazed at how much damage they can do to experienced players when they catch cards.

- Javanet, thanks for your thoughts that you feel it's viable with the right players at the table.

- illiterat, I know that GTO frowns on large opening bet sizes, but...I have had exceptional success at opening a hand for large amounts in order to thin out the field. Here's is a good example. I go to the casino and play the 5/10/20 game, I'll open for $50 from every position and I get the requisite folds. It works great to do a 2.5X opening bet and no one has a clue as to what I have. On the flip side there is a home game I play in that's a 1/2 game where players play an incredible amount of marginal hands so my usual opening bet with no limpers before me is $25. When there are limpers in front, then I charge $15/limper. That's correct...$15/limper. Sounds completely nuts...I know...but it gets me the one caller who is desperate to see his flop and it's been extremely profitable. I suppose you could say that I am going purely exploitative which does open me up to being exploited, but thus far it's worked wonders at that crazy game.

I was glad to read that no one thought my tactics were totally far out. I'll be playing at one of these games on Wednesday, so I'll report back what happens afterwards.

Odds connected two cards flops SD: 1/9.3; 1-gap flops SD: 1/12

Connected flops straight: 1/76. 1-gap flops straight: 1/101.

Suited 2 cards flops FD: 1/8.1; flops flush 1/118

All from this table & scroll down. Table lists probabilities of players getting set over set'd etc as well.

As to the point about a table of limpers collectively being challenging, isn't the solution to tighten our overall range a tad, then polarize and really tighten our value lobe? I.e., dump stuff like K9o, and instead go for premiums and then balancing with hands like A4s, A5s, etc., which have some playability if called/are drawing to the nuts, plus block Aces?

If Vs aren't folding, why are we mixing it up with hands that while probably are ahead of their range, aren't so far ahead that we're a clear favorite? We rarely/never flop like K9X while holding K9o, so we never know if our passive opponents are stationing us down with better kickers etc. Yeah, that's poker, but from your post, it sounds like it's running suboptimally...

Open limping is not GTO, except short stacked in tournaments. I understand that bad players limp/call with junk, etc. It is kind of ridiculous to never make a play because fish overuse it and follow it up badly. I use whatever plays are available to me, and sometimes limping is best. I learned when it was an acceptable play. For example, Doyle, in his book, said he open limped some hands, like pps and suited connectors.

With Axs, you want to keep the money deep and it as multiway as possible with the idea of winning a big pot with flush over flush.

With a small pp, there are advantages to building the pot multiway. Also, as the preflop raiser in late position, you may be able to check back and see a free turn card. Generally, I limp behind and call with small pps. I tried raising limpers, but you can reduce the field going regular size. If you go smallish, you get 3! too much, which is sort of a disaster.

I will limp behind in CO or BTN with suited connectors and some other decent hands. Sometimes I will raise light with them, but building the pot will not accomplish much. You can raise large and often take it or get HU or 3-way. That may allow you to bluff when you miss, representing JJ+ or AK, and is not a bad approach, but I don't like playing that way or folding always.

Sometimes, I open limp small pps, mostly in ep. It depends on the table. If a raise is likely to get it multiway and there isn't much chance of a 3!, then raising is better.

I pretty much never open limp from late position. From mid position, I can limp some marginal hands and reevaluate if raised.

The limp/3! is a powerful play in a way, but it tends to be done unbalanced, and you don't want to have a big pp fairly face up fairly deep.

IMO, a lot of it is "it depends". What will work fine in some environments won't work as great in others. And there's always more than one way to do things and it's sometimes hard to evaluate whether one way is clearly better than another.

My typical LLSNL table is often ~shorter stacked (sometimes by design and sometimes by circumstance), raisey preflop (only ~1/3rd of pots are limped), typically largish raises (5x+ is standard and can balloon to much larger after a limper or two) and obviously feature a crapload of poor players (otherwise I wouldn't win). Which, imo, means (a) I have to play extremely tight in EP/MP (as there is too good a chance I'm going to face a large raise which small effective stacks can't handle with speculative hands) and (b) I'm fine with limping/overlimping big hands from lottsa positions since there is a decent chance I get a chance to consider a 3bet (and meanwhile am fine playing a large SPR if it limps around). So really the only time I'm allowed to possibly see a cheap flop with a speculative hand, or raise myself, is when I'm in position. But, that's in my particular game; you may be able to get away with something much different in your game.

Just a couple of my own random thoughts on some other points in OP:

- read weakness into a limp/overlimp at your own peril
- "taking down the blinds" in a NL game is completely meaningless and is not what we're attempting to do; the stacks behind / significant dead money are what is important, imo
- in general, getting "weak/marginal hands out" is also not our goal, especially if the pot is extremely small/meaningless when doing so and our opponents are morans (although there is much more merit to this idea if the pot is large / we'll be getting ourselves into a commitment spot / our opponents aren't morans)
- while there is something to be said for narrowing the field (so that we have a better chance at winning the pot, don't necessarily need to make a hand to do so, make us more difficult to play against, etc.), there is also something to be said for happily wanting every single player in the pot preflop and playing make-a-hand poker postflop in position against morans
- in smaller stacked games (i.e. the ones I play in, so not necessarily your situation), raising junk like K9o after 3 limpers (who have likely all passively limped dominating hands) is setting money on fire (as it gets in a decent percentage of our stack as the dog plus sets up a horrible small SPR postflop); after 3 limpers, I am happily overlimping KTo and all other speculative hands on the Button, knowing that I'm getting in a small meaningless ~1% of my stack in as a likely dog but looking to get in the meaningful ~99% of my stack in postflop as a huge fave; seeing a cheap flop to a large SPR in position against morans with anything playable should be a huge part of our game plan... at least at the stack sizes I typically play at

But, "it depends". Try to find a method that works well for your situation, your skillz, your personality, etc.

GcluelessNLnoobG

[QUOTE=Nh,gg.]As to the point about a table of limpers collectively being challenging, isn't the solution to tighten our overall range a tad, then polarize and really tighten our value lobe? I.e., dump stuff like K9o, and instead go for premiums and then balancing with hands like A4s, A5s, etc., which have some playability if called/are drawing to the nuts, plus block Aces?

If Vs aren't folding, why are we mixing it up with hands that while probably are ahead of their range, aren't so far ahead that we're a clear favorite? We rarely/never flop like K9X while holding K9o, so we never know if our passive opponents are stationing us down with better kickers etc. Yeah, that's poker, but from your post, it sounds like it's running suboptimally...[/QUOTE]

K8 is the bottom of the opening range for GTO, so K9 IMO is tightening the range a tad, however I did postulate that I could tighten it further to K10. I don't think I would need to limit the range down to just premiums with some balancing hands, but it's an interesting thought if this approach is lacking.

[QUOTE=deuceblocker]You can raise large and often take it or get HU or 3-way. That may allow you to bluff when you miss, representing JJ+ or AK, and is not a bad approach, but I don't like playing that way or folding always.[/QUOTE]

That is actually one of my favorite tactics. I understand how players don't like the risk involved, but I have found it to profitable. You just have to make sure no one is shortstacked, otherwise you're getting called.

To gobbledygeek:

"read weakness into a limp/overlimp at your own peril"
> With rec players, I would say limping = weakness. With competent players, I agree with your statement completely.

"taking down the blinds" in a NL game is completely meaningless and is not what we're attempting to do; the stacks behind / significant dead money are what is important, imo"
> Good point...although it's "some" money, what's $4 when you have $1,000 behind?

"in general, getting "weak/marginal hands out" is also not our goal, especially if the pot is extremely small/meaningless when doing so and our opponents are morans (although there is much more merit to this idea if the pot is large / we'll be getting ourselves into a commitment spot / our opponents aren't morans)"
> My take on this is a little different. I often remind players that we're not just playing for the main pot...we're playing for the other stacks. That single player who I isolate with my $40 bet when the pot has only a few dollars in it is fine to me. If I can get him involved without any others tagging along, then the money he has in front of him is the real treasure for me.

"while there is something to be said for narrowing the field (so that we have a better chance at winning the pot, don't necessarily need to make a hand to do so, make us more difficult to play against, etc.), there is also something to be said for happily wanting every single player in the pot preflop and playing make-a-hand poker postflop in position against morans"
> That's a great description and that is what I am proposing PROVIDED that certain conditions warrant it.

"in smaller stacked games (i.e. the ones I play in, so not necessarily your situation), raising junk like K9o after 3 limpers (who have likely all passively limped dominating hands) is setting money on fire (as it gets in a decent percentage of our stack as the dog plus sets up a horrible small SPR postflop); after 3 limpers, I am happily overlimping KTo and all other speculative hands on the Button, knowing that I'm getting in a small meaningless ~1% of my stack in as a likely dog but looking to get in the meaningful ~99% of my stack in postflop as a huge fave; seeing a cheap flop to a large SPR in position against morans with anything playable should be a huge part of our game plan... at least at the stack sizes I typically play at."
> So this is where it gets interesting. Yes, my K9o hand is probably a dog to at least one of the three limpers, BUT...I feel as though my position will offset the disadvantage just enough to be able to make enough plays that are EV+ in the end.

[QUOTE=RaiseAnnounced]I have been playing poker for close to 20 years and no one has ever shown me evidence of them earning a profit with half the hands you listed from EP (and I've seen A LOT to the contrary, including in my own DB), much less as an open limp. I would like any evidence other than LLSNL truisms that "67s is great multiway", particularly without initiative in MP of a high SPR situation.[/QUOTE]

The ability of something like 67s to make either a straight or a flush is significant. I agree that its relative equity to other holdings is low, but the potential it has to make a very profitable hand is high. The challenge is the reverse implied odds. You are likely not going to realize your equity on the flop and you'll need at least one or potentially two more streets to get there. But if the table lets the hand get through to see a flop for the cost of $2 or $3, then it's well worth the cheap investment for the possible big payoff. Also remember that although these are "competent" limpers, they're not great players. Another reason to look at different exploits.

This is very true HU vs. KK on Jx5x4 where you are slightly ahead and don't care that much if you get the money in on the flop.

It's not true when you are 6 ways on Jx5x4 and 2 other people want to put the money in, with J9 and ATs. Damn that was unlucky, maybe next time it goes 6 ways you can bet pot into 44 or bet pot into a bunch of KT/Q9/A7 hands that all immediately fold.

Not to worry, I'm sure you'll make it up in volume.

Okay, so now you play it slow and the flush gets there on the river but there are 6 flush cards higher than yours, how much do you want to put in? How much does any hand without a flush?

I don't know about open limping, but limping behind with Axs and small pps is often optimal. You want to keep the money deep and keep players in the pot, and don't want to get 3!. Kind of automatic aggro to raise any hand you want to play. Can't limp behind in any situation because that is a donk play.

Or maybe there will be three instead of two others who want to go for it, in which case I'll be getting the 3:1 pot odds I need to join in the fun in your example. Or maybe ATs limps again post flop (because that's what limpers do) and I get away from their flush for $3 or I hit my straight because they don't think I have it and they believe their overcard is enough.

As an earlier poster wrote, "it depends." How large is the pot at that point? How large is the bet coming from which player? If I've been paying attention, then I should have a fair amount of information to evaluate whether it's worth it or not. Again...this is for a $3 initial investment and my ability to manage (or mismanage) the process is what is going to make for a profit or loss.

This is slowly the conclusion I came to as well as I moved to my Super Nit method, at least for myself in my game, which is why I play so tight OOP. In EP my range is literally 77+/AQo+/ATs+/KQs (7%)... and even that might even be too loose (i.e. it's debatable whether the bottom end of that is actually profitable for me).

In LP, I'll try to sneak into a pot for cheap with 43% of hands (slightly more if a real mark is in the hand, slightly less if not). Since I obviously don't have a database of my live hands, I can't say with certainty if all of those hands are actually profitable for me. However, if at worse some of them are small losers then I'm willing to take that small hit just so people can see me as the guy who "showed up with 74o" instead of the guy who "I've literally only seen show up with QQ+/AK".

And yeah, RIO is a real thing with 65s. Still, I'll play it for cheap in position. I'm simply hoping my skill advantage + my position will make it profitable for me in this spot (but, again, I have no concrete database proof it is). The more we start adding speculative hands from all positions, the more the gap in reciprocality between us and our opponents starts decreasing; yeah, we play better postflop than them, but sometimes that alone will have a hard time overtaking starting hand strength and position.

GcluelessprofitablerangenoobG

That's a pretty standard GTO opening range. Would you fold KJs if you were UTG? I'm always proud of myself when I fold AJo and KJo from there or UTG+1 because they're so pretty, but we all know the trouble they can bring when OOP. KJs I would open raise from EP.

The ability of a hand to make the 36th nuts <10% of the time that you manage to make it all the way to the river is not actually that significant.

If you played a toy game where there is no betting on the flop and turn, then you would get enough value from your straights and flushes to go directly to your bottom line. What actually happens is the hand flops some combination of pairs, direct draws and/or backdoor equity often enough that it can make flop/turn calls, bets and raises that are a direct loss looking at hot and cold equity vs pot odds because it knows it will make enough money when it hits to recoup those losses.

This is the value of suited (semi-)connected hands: they very stable equity against an array of ranges against any number of players, and realizes that equity well. So, for example, you have 33% equity HU against a top 10% range vs 38% equity against a top 40% range, and 28% 3-way against a top 20% range and capped 30% range.

What is VERY important to note about the above numbers is that you are STILL on the losing end of things. You are not getting direct value out of playing the hand cold, ie: >50% HU, 33% 3-way, etc (until you get beyond 5-way*).

You are CLOSE ENOUGH that the hand can bet 0EV+ to play if you either already put money in the pot (eg: defending your BB against a 3x open or calling a 3b as the raiser) or you get money from fold equity (eg: you're raising 3x and have a chance of scooping the blinds). The opposite is the case when you limp a hand cold: you believe you are making enough BEYOND your contribution to the pot to make up for the 10-20% (or whatever) you don't see the flop at all or have to pay a steeper price to do so. You're simply moving in the wrong direction.

Now all of the above was pretty theoretical. Of course you'll have skill advantage over your opponents and all that (though the premise here is that they're "competent" so I'm not even sure about that), but two things:

1) I find that the fundamental dynamics established by theory still apply. HH after HH of people cold calling SCs corroborate that my sentence that starts with "What actually happens is..." is what actually happens, and not just some PIO thought experiment for math nerds. You can adjust for the fact that your opponents are letting you realize your equity cheaper and paying you off more when you hit, etc, by sprinkling 10-20% on top of your EQR.

But you are not going to convince me that flush-mining SCs works like set-mining PPs where the EV distribution for different flops is so lopsided that just 10% of boards can account for the bulk of your EV.

2) Even if #1 isn't true, I think it puts the onus on people who hypothesize that practice is ass-backwards from the theory. Which it is in some cases, but it's gonna take some compelling evidence of some sort for me to be convinced.

*Going 5-way would mean that an average of 4 of your 8 opponents are making it to the flop, and I don't think the "competent limpers" you're talking about are limping 50% of ATC. That would just make them whales. If they so much as limp 25% (which is still extreme fish territory) you're going an average of 3-way.

KJs is a top 5% hand in deep-stacked poker.

FWIW this was in response to a response to GG ... who pretty much always plays short stack AIUI.

K9s is a 75% GTO open from EP (for GTO sizes), at 100bb, as is KQo.
In response KQo is a pure fold from everyone but BB vs. an EP open, and AQo is like a 75% fold from MP; 50% from HJ; 25% from CO.

But real life low stakes live KQo is probably a pure call in MP, and KJo is probably a pure call by most.
So KJs and esp. KTs go down in value as EP opens IMO.

I used to play wider in ~EP in that KJs/KTs/QJs/QTs/JTs along with A9s- as well as 66- made the cut. But when I re-evaluated and went to my Super Nit method, I dropped those hands. I simply don't think they are profitable for me in my game in ~EP. Of course, I have no hard evidence of that. And they're likely somewhat close either way. But in an effort to win the reciprocality war against my opponents, that is what I've done. FWIW, experts can obviously play a lot wider, but I ain't no expert.

GnoragretsG

In my opinion, pre-flop poker comes down to 4 elements: Hand Strength, Position, Initiative and Skill. The relative importance varies each hand and the circumstances. Of course, you'd like to have AA on the button and raise (and better, get called). That said I'd like to have at least two of these elements before entering a pot and 3 would be great.

Limping in give one of these elements away. Sure, you can blast away post flop. But it is a far more expensive way to say, "hey, I've got the best hand" than raising pf. Lots of players think they have a skill advantage. Limping in, hoping you hit something on the flop is not a skill. Lots of bad players do that. The skill comes in for example if you have a plan to win the hand if you miss the flop.

Position alot players these days forget. Which is easier to play rock paper scissors. Going first or going last after you see what everyone has done?

So how does GG do it, year after year? He is playing a better range than his villains and is playing in position. He is also skilled enough to recognize when he doesn't have the best hand and gets out early.

how much to get me into a 5/10/20 game where people think like this

I agree that in general raising is better than limping. However, in some situations, limping is the better play. For example, sometimes it is better to limp behind with a small pp. You have a very profitable situation playing a limped pot like 5-way with a pp. You can fold when you miss. I know that is weak and you should always represent a strong hand and take the initiative and bluff when you miss. However, you get really good immediate odds to hit your set and a bunch of people limping random high cards and suited cards can hit 2-pair, which they will have a hard time folding. Then if it gets raised, you have no problem limp/calling, and that is also a very profitable situation to play a raised pot multiway. If you raise, you could limit the field, but worse you could get 3!. Your hand might not be playable HU shallow in a 3! pot.

I am not going to write out a long post—I have before on similar topics—but let me just say, out of those who are defending limping, so far everyone except GG is assuming that if you limp you are going to play a limped pot.

The point of limping—at least if you are doing it in good spots—is not to play a limped pot. It is to have relative position preflop when someone else raises. I am never trying to play a limped pot when I limp from anywhere except the SB. Usually when I choose hands to limp with they’re mostly hands where I’m OK with playing a limped pot but I would rather someone else raise.

The thing I appreciate most about this whole discussion is you describe actually playing reasonable ranges from EP as being a 'Super Nit' lol. Maybe a little bit tighter than recommended, but barely. Especially low pocket pairs are just straight garbo from EP.

Open limping is pretty much always a losing strategy. You either open limp from EP with weak holdings that should fold to any bet by a later position(and if you don't, you're losing money). Or you open limp from late position and lose out on the advantage of putting pressure on holdings in position.

Overlimping from late position to help entice fish in the blinds into the pot might be profitable since they will make the biggest mistakes and have to play OOP. Also you can reasonably call a raise from the blinds to have position. Not sure about the profitability though.