mason55
01-10-2005, 08:44 PM
I cashed out all my money from pacific awhile ago but i still had $0.45 left, so i figured i'd see what happens in their microlimit game. Turned it into $10, so now i've been screwing around at the $10NL tables. Anyways, here's my question.
In the section on Loose Games (which the pacific games definitely are, with 70% seeing the flop), there's a quote that says:
"The extreme case of this (getting in for cheap with a marginal holding) is in no limit. If you ever saw a good no limit player against weak players, you will find that he is constantly limping in. He is playing about 1/3 of the hands and limping with almost all of them. he's giving up a little bit before the flop because he can outplay them later."
I've been wondering how true this is and how much people have played with this at lower limits NL. I realize some of the reasons the text states for doing this don't apply to NL (such as keeping the pot small so that there's no pot odds to chase), but a lot of the ideas from that section can be adapted.
Personally, I've been limping with any Ax suited, Kx suited where x > 7, most suited connectors, middle suited one gappers in late position, etc etc etc. The only hands i've been raising with have been AA, KK, QQ, and AK (and not even AK all the time).
I've been finding this to work extremely well the past two days I've been doing it, but I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas/thoughts on the long term profitability of this strategy. It seems to be working well, in fact I feel like people are more likely to play at my AQ with A-weak when an ace flops if I don't raise. I realize I'm setting myself up to lose to raggedy two pairs, but I can handle this and have no problem laying down the hand if the situation warrants. The key is that when I lose a hand to a Ace-rag two pair, I can make up for it most of the time next time I hit TPGK. I also won't have as far to make up since I won't be blowing off money with preflop raises that I have to fold if I don't hit since most people will call to the river. Obviously I know this strategy won't work at higher limits where more than 1 hand in 20 gets raised preflop.
In the section on Loose Games (which the pacific games definitely are, with 70% seeing the flop), there's a quote that says:
"The extreme case of this (getting in for cheap with a marginal holding) is in no limit. If you ever saw a good no limit player against weak players, you will find that he is constantly limping in. He is playing about 1/3 of the hands and limping with almost all of them. he's giving up a little bit before the flop because he can outplay them later."
I've been wondering how true this is and how much people have played with this at lower limits NL. I realize some of the reasons the text states for doing this don't apply to NL (such as keeping the pot small so that there's no pot odds to chase), but a lot of the ideas from that section can be adapted.
Personally, I've been limping with any Ax suited, Kx suited where x > 7, most suited connectors, middle suited one gappers in late position, etc etc etc. The only hands i've been raising with have been AA, KK, QQ, and AK (and not even AK all the time).
I've been finding this to work extremely well the past two days I've been doing it, but I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas/thoughts on the long term profitability of this strategy. It seems to be working well, in fact I feel like people are more likely to play at my AQ with A-weak when an ace flops if I don't raise. I realize I'm setting myself up to lose to raggedy two pairs, but I can handle this and have no problem laying down the hand if the situation warrants. The key is that when I lose a hand to a Ace-rag two pair, I can make up for it most of the time next time I hit TPGK. I also won't have as far to make up since I won't be blowing off money with preflop raises that I have to fold if I don't hit since most people will call to the river. Obviously I know this strategy won't work at higher limits where more than 1 hand in 20 gets raised preflop.