Is it ever right to open limp in the SB?

[Joe826]

This may have been discussed before and it seems the obvious answer is no but are there any situations where you would do this? What about given this scenario: you have an LP directly to your left who will never fold to an open-raise from the SB and will almost always call you down to the river where she might fold if she didn't hit anything, but still likes to call with hands like ace and even king high. Now say you've gotten a marginal stealing hand, one that's right on the border between raising and folding, is there any grey area here? It seems like if there is no chance your opponent will fold when you raise then it must be purely for value and in situations where your hand isn't really great what do you do? I might be inclined just to fold since I don't know where I'm at if I miss the flop, but against players that take their hands waaaayyy too far I think this gives up too much. What do you think?

[rtrombone]

If the answer to this question is no, this means that it's always better to raise or fold first in from the small blind. Clearly, this can't be correct. Depending on the blind structure, you're getting on average 3-1. There are lots of hands you want to see the flop with getting 3-1. I mean, the big blind can have anything, right? If you raise you risk 1.5 bets to win 1.5--and you may get 3-bet.

Against passive players there are lots of hands with which it is correct to just complete. Even if the big blind is aggressive you should be limping a decent percentage of the time. It's often better to limp and let him raise than it is to raise only to get 3-bet (unless you're planning to 4-bet). You can also do a lot of limp-reraising to provide cover for your marginal hands.