Limp in w/more hands at 50+5 because you start off w/200 more chips?

[AA suited]

For those that went up from 30+3 to 50+5, did the extra 200 chips change your playing style? if so, HOW?

[tigerite]

Not really. And in answer to your question in the topic, no, I do not limp with more hands. Why would I?

[ghostface]

Just dont limp. I might limp once or twice in a SnG and thats usually only if I have doubled up early and have a chance to draw to a monster against one of the larger stacks remaining.

[tigerite]

That's poor advice, you should limp with mid pairs to try to spike a set still, in the first few levels. Ditto AQ.

[texasrattlers]

I agree. I am slightly more loose than that, limping w/ the occasional KQ or 9Ts or something like that (w/ position and other limpers) if the blinds are small or I have accumulated some chips earlier.

[tigerite]

Yes, sure, suited connectors and KQo is fine from late position as well..

[Irieguy]

Here's why:

With more chips, players will not get desperate as soon as they do in the lower limits. This is an accidentally correct improvement in their strategy. It results in more players being alive in the later levels, which mandates a more dramatic adjustment to push/fold play as the blinds increase.

But because your opponents are not desperate as quickly, they are less likely to call for all of their chips early. This lowers your implied odds for speculative hands, and makes limping with them less profitable.

When you move from the $33's to the $55's, you would be correct to stop limping with pairs smaller than 66 and abandon all limping with suited connectors smaller than KQ early, and QJ late. It took me a while to figure this out, but I'm pretty sure it's correct.

Irieguy

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]
you would be correct to stop limping with pairs smaller than 66

[/ QUOTE ]
...why? Because you aren't gonna be automatically doubling up when you spike a set?

[tigerite]

Whilst I would not limp with less than KQs early, I probably will limp behind other limpers in late position with lower than QJs, at level 1. Unless you're talking about QJo of course, which is the lowest hand I'll limp with there. Not sure I agree with 66 unless you are only talking about early position again?

[AA suited]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's why:

With more chips, players will not get desperate as soon as they do in the lower limits. This is an accidentally correct improvement in their strategy. It results in more players being alive in the later levels, which mandates a more dramatic adjustment to push/fold play as the blinds increase.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

What dramatic adjustment to push/fold play as the blinds increase??? how would you play it differently?

[Irieguy]

Yeah, the main reason you limp with pairs is the implied odds associated with doubling up when you flop a set. But there is some intrinsic value as well to a pair. It's possible that a pocket pair will still be the best hand after the flop, even without a set. The lower the pair, the harder it is to play post flop if you decide not to just fold it, or if it's checked around.

So, as you lose your implied odds... which you do when you move to the $55's, the small pairs that you would play exclusively for set value become virtually worthless. I picked 66 somewhat arbitrarily, but 88 is probably a better lower limit because it's the smallest pocket pair with which you can have an overpair to the board with no possible straight out. (flop 2-3-7)

In fact, as of right now, I just changed my small pair limping criteria for the 55's to pocket 8's.

Irieguy

[tigerite]

Valid points, but some of the play at $55s is still so bad that you do get nutters going all-in on draws, and with TPTK, in the early stages..

[texasrattlers]

[ QUOTE ]
... small pairs that you would play exclusively for set value become virtually worthless ... In fact, as of right now, I just changed my small pair limping criteria for the 55's to pocket 8's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really think you are losing out on potentially big hands w/ little risk by not limping w/ 22-77 early. A set of 2s is gonna win just as many chips as a set of 8s IMHO.

[Bigwig]

Heh. I'm sort of surprised to see people saying 'tighten up' because your implied odds are less. You're implied odds aren't necessarily less at all. It just won't be for somebody's whole stack quite as often. That doesn't mean you can't catch a big hand and increase your stack by 50%.

It stands to reason that when you can limp for a smaller portion of your stack (say, 2% as opposed to 5%), it makes sense to play more hands.

Playing 'loose' is not nearly as bad as everyone on this board makes it out to be. You can be loose early, as long as you know when to let go of a marginal hand. Your variance may increase, but so will your win rate.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
A set of 2s is gonna win just as many chips as a set of 8s IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but you are less likely to lose to a bigger set, and more likely to win chips with a value bet/call as your pair increases. The smallest pairs just simply don't have enough value to warrant the (even small) investment.

Irieguy

[Michael C.]

Do other posters here agree you shouldn't limp with 2-2 to 7-7 in the 55 or 109 SNG's? I always limp with them in almost any position, because I think not only can you flop a set and get a lot of chips, but you can also make a play for a pot if the flop is not favorable for the other high cards, even in early position. If it's a very agressive game, I wouldn't, but a lot of 55's and 100s are fairly tight/weak. I think it's easily worth the $15-30 investment. Thoughts?

[Michael C.]

I agree with this last post 100%. I think the only -EV play is holding onto low pocket pairs too long when it's not there. As long as you're willing to throw them away, I think it's a positive EV play. Unless you're at a table with raisers, which you should soon find out.

[syka16]

Limp JJ and lower pairs. Axs is overrated because at that level there going to make you pay to draw out. Toss em. Fold everything else that's not worth a raise. Limp KQo? Very funny.

[texasrattlers]

I guess we just totally disagree on this one. It may be a matter of buy-in here too. At the $10 Stars tables you get paid off pretty well with a flopped set most of the time. Perhaps players are more cautious about this type of thing at the higher buy-ins. Also personally I dislike playing a mid-pocket pair for pair value -- if I am betting and calling bets for value after the flop I want to be pretty sure I have the best of it, and I think you rarely get that w/mid-pockets.

[texasrattlers]

"No set, no bet." Easiest hand to play.