Theoretical justification for limping

[William Jockusch]

Suppose I am playing some form of poker that has blinds, such as limit HE, or NL HE. Also suppose that I have decided to play my hand, and no one has entered the pot in front of me.

Why would I ever want to limp in?

It seems to me that by limping, as opposed to raising, I am just taking money out of my pocket and giving it to the big blind.

Why would I do this?

I am aware that S+M consistently recommend limping in with certain hands in certain situations. But what is the theoretical justification for it?

[jackfrost]

Certain hands like small pairs and suited connectors are more profitable against larger fields. Raising narrows the field which is counterproductive.
But i guess it depend on the players. I open much more often when tight players are yet to act.

[William Jockusch]

Does that mean that limping is basically counting on my opponents to play badly? [If I expect a large field, I think that means they are definitely playing badly.]

I can agree that if my opponents tend to make a lot of mistakes, limping might be correct.

[jackfrost]

That pretty much means that for that play to be profitable you need a better chance of stealing the blinds. My blind defense increases against a player who raises every time they come in in late/mid posistion. So good players will also give you trouble after they see you coming in with 44 for a raise in mid.
My statement or based on limit hold'em, not sure about nl.

[BluffTHIS!]

The question here is are there hands which are worth playing in early position but which you would not like to call a reraise with. Hands like TT/99/KQs or possibly AJo if the game is not too aggressive. The problem with them is that they are unlikely to be the best hand at the moment and that even if they are, raising with them in early position could induce several callers each of whom make it more correct for others to call and to call with draws on the flop because of the resulting pot size. And if you are reraised behind by a tight-aggressive player who might hold a range of hands, with you holding TT and resulting in a heads up pot, you are often just better off investing fewer bets in the pot and checking and calling to the river versus a rag board losing less money to an overpair and inducing bets from someone who will keep betting AK with no improvement.

This all assumes the game in question is limit. If you are playing pot or no-limit, especially shorthanded, then there is more of a need to raise with those type of hands to get out overcards and drawing hands so that you don't have to play a mulitway pot out of position with them when your whole stack is at stake. And if you are reraised by a very tight player you can often fold to avoid the trap of a rag board and an overpair dominating you, where in limit you would merely be able to check/call for 2.5 BB more rather than possibly your entire stack.

[emonrad87]

[ QUOTE ]
The question here is are there hands which are worth playing in early position but which you would not like to call a reraise with. Hands like TT/99/KQs or possibly AJo if the game is not too aggressive. The problem with them is that they are unlikely to be the best hand at the moment and that even if they are, raising with them in early position could induce several callers each of whom make it more correct for others to call and to call with draws on the flop because of the resulting pot size. And if you are reraised behind by a tight-aggressive player who might hold a range of hands, with you holding TT and resulting in a heads up pot, you are often just better off investing fewer bets in the pot and checking and calling to the river versus a rag board losing less money to an overpair and inducing bets from someone who will keep betting AK with no improvement.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is just wrong. All of the hands you list ARE likely to be the best, or damn close to it. Furthermore, by limping in you make a terrible mistake - letting people see a very cheap (and for the BB, free) flop. You need to be raising with ALL of these hands in early position EVERY time.

[K C]

This is a very interesting topic /images/graemlins/smile.gif

When's it better to limp in first in the pot seems to be the question. Often times it will be corrrect to raise, and I don't think anyone will disagree with that.

One of the obvious considerations here is putting in a raise when you really can't stand a re-raise. While you want to take into account hands not strong enough for calling raises, when you're raising yourself, you're doubling the risk here. Let's say you have KQ in MP. Now, this is a hand you would consider playing, and more often than not you'll get away with the limp. But there's a chance that someone may raise downstream of course, and you've now wasted two bets instead of one here. If you call the re-raise of course, you're getting yourself into all sorts of potential trouble /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Another consideration, and a fairly significant one I might add, is that not all hands worth calling with are worth raising with. And when we're on a draw, which is going to be the case unless we have a high PP, then we want to pay attention to the odds we're getting on the extra bet.

There's some concern for the blinds here and while it is valid to a point. As you normally have the advantage over them, which is going to be true most of the time, sometimes you want them in the hand (gasp) /images/graemlins/smile.gif Sure, they'll get lucky on you and take your money once in awhile, but as long as the game is loose, with a lot of calling stations, you'll take more of theirs than they will take of yours. This is going to be true in cases where people often will stay in the hand with things like second or third pair. Everyone hates losing to the blinds though /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Ultimately, it comes down to your needing a reason to raise, which is the case whether it's pre-flop or post flop. You need to look at the advantages and disadvantages of putting in the extra bet. And, very often, it's going to be better to put that raise in pre-flop, and if you play very tight, it's going to be almost all the time. Those who don't play so tight though need to be a lot more careful /images/graemlins/smile.gif

KC
kingcobrapoker.com

[PokrLikeItsProse]

The theoretical justification is that you give up some EV before the flop in order to gain a greater magnitude of EV after the flop. It is the same principle as not calling a tournament all-in even when you are probably slightly ahead because you expect to have a greater edge later on.

It's been said that a good player at a weak no-limit table will limp into almost a third of the pots for this reason.

[KidNapster]

[ QUOTE ]
But there's a chance that someone may raise downstream of course, and you've now wasted two bets instead of one here. If you call the re-raise of course, you're getting yourself into all sorts of potential trouble

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make any sense and it's a very weak-passive way of looking at this decision. You haven't "wasted" any bets by raising. If anything, you're more likely to be "getting yourself into all sorts of potential trouble" by NOT raising.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
Does that mean that limping is basically counting on my opponents to play badly? [If I expect a large field, I think that means they are definitely playing badly.]

I can agree that if my opponents tend to make a lot of mistakes, limping might be correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The reason you want a large field with certain hands is all about odds.

For example, with 88 UTG, you generally need to flop a set or better to keep playing. That's 7.5:1 against. If you limp, and induce say 3 other limpers plus the blinds, you are getting 5:1 on your limp. You need only make 2.5 small bets when you hit your set or better to break even.

However, if you raise 88 UTG, and only get 2 callers (including BB), now you are getting 2.25:1 odds on your 7.5:1 shot. But the "1" is twice as much as the first example. For the hand to be profitable, you must win 10.5 small bets (5.25 big bets) when you hit your set or better to break even.

[bobbyi]

The blind is simply a forced bet. Rather than thinking of it as equivalent to an ante, you can think of it as if holdem were a game with no antes and the big blind is a guy who just decided to bet on the first street without looking at his cards. Calling here isn't that different theoretically than calling a bet in a multiway pot on any other street and you would call for the same reasons. The only difference is that since his bet was forced, his range of hands is wide, but this still doesn't make it too different from facing a bet on the flop in a multiway pot from a guy who will bet with pretty much anything.

[William Jockusch]

It feels like it is relevant to the discussion to figure out how much limping tends to narrow the field.

Here are some numbers, from party 15/30, courtesy of poker tracker:

I looked at the hands where all of the following were true:

1) I was sitting 6 or more seats off the button.
2) I did not have a blind
3) I raised first in.

It turns out this was a total of 395 hands. Here are the outcomes:

I won the pot right there 42 times -- 11%.
Of the times I did not win it right there, an average of 3.1 players saw the flop.

Unfortunately, I don't have a good way to examine the times where I limped first in.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]
It feels like it is relevant to the discussion to figure out how much limping tends to narrow the field.

Here are some numbers, from party 15/30, courtesy of poker tracker:


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the full numbers from poker tracker are relevent. There exist some tables where limping will narrow the field and others where it doesn't. You have probably played at both types of tables, so both are incorporated in your stats. You just need to recognize the other players' different requirements for calling a limper and calling a raise (this is practically zero in the case of some players) and figure out how a mix of different players with different requirements will act in concert.

[K C]

It makes sense and it's not weak or passive. It's the same reasoning as why you wouldn't want to play hands in EP that you would play later.

If you're sitting with a hand worth barely calling, are you not concerned about being behind with it? Now, you're calling with it is going to take into account the risk of being raised. And by definition this is a hand which can't stand a raise. Of course we could not play it at all, but we'd be abandoning profitable situations.

Now, you're suggesting that we raise with it instead of calling. We can debate whether this move was a good one or not in terms of equity, but unless you're prepared to call the re-raise with it, you're risking an additional bet to a re-raise.

I gather though that you would call the re-raise here. Remember, we're talking hands barely worth calling with. Are you serious man? /images/graemlins/smile.gif The guy with the re-raising hand is going to happy to see that /images/graemlins/smile.gif

As far as getting into more trouble by not raising, this tells me you're more concerned about winning hands than maximizing your profit. You can't really get in trouble by not raising, however, you'll cut your profit expectations by not raising when it's correct to do so. By the same token though, you'll cut your profit by raising when it's incorrect.

KC
kingcobrapoker.com

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
The question here is are there hands which are worth playing in early position but which you would not like to call a reraise with. Hands like TT/99/KQs or possibly AJo if the game is not too aggressive. The problem with them is that they are unlikely to be the best hand at the moment and that even if they are, raising with them in early position could induce several callers each of whom make it more correct for others to call and to call with draws on the flop because of the resulting pot size. And if you are reraised behind by a tight-aggressive player who might hold a range of hands, with you holding TT and resulting in a heads up pot, you are often just better off investing fewer bets in the pot and checking and calling to the river versus a rag board losing less money to an overpair and inducing bets from someone who will keep betting AK with no improvement.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is just wrong. All of the hands you list ARE likely to be the best, or damn close to it. Furthermore, by limping in you make a terrible mistake - letting people see a very cheap (and for the BB, free) flop. You need to be raising with ALL of these hands in early position EVERY time.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not good *general* advice, IMHO. If you quantified it to Limit HE, that might be correct. I think that is incorrect general advice in a NL game.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Theoretical justification for limping

[/ QUOTE ]

To induce bad calls from your opponets.

Say your in a game where people will typically over call with hands like J7s, K7o, K2s etc, but will need something like AJ or KQ to call a raise. Can you see why you might limp wiht KJ but raise with AK?

[BarronVangorToth]

Hopefully I don't insult people on this board who constantly give this advice, but one of the things I read often that I find to be untrue is this:

"Never limp."

In poker, there is always reason to mix up your game and to do certain things at certain times for certain reasons.

If you're at a table in early position where you know if you raise, most will fold, but if you limp, you'll have 8 or 9 callers, what do you do with hands like A-X suited? And I want to see the flop with for 9 SB's with pocket 6's, not for 4 SB's that are just me and one guy.

Limp sometimes -- it's fine.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[GreywolfNYC]

[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully I don't insult people on this board who constantly give this advice, but one of the things I read often that I find to be untrue is this:

"Never limp."

In poker, there is always reason to mix up your game and to do certain things at certain times for certain reasons.

If you're at a table in early position where you know if you raise, most will fold, but if you limp, you'll have 8 or 9 callers, what do you do with hands like A-X suited? And I want to see the flop with for 9 SB's with pocket 6's, not for 4 SB's that are just me and one guy.

Limp sometimes -- it's fine.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[/ QUOTE ]

That's really bad advice.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully I don't insult people on this board who constantly give this advice, but one of the things I read often that I find to be untrue is this:

"Never limp."

In poker, there is always reason to mix up your game and to do certain things at certain times for certain reasons.

If you're at a table in early position where you know if you raise, most will fold, but if you limp, you'll have 8 or 9 callers, what do you do with hands like A-X suited? And I want to see the flop with for 9 SB's with pocket 6's, not for 4 SB's that are just me and one guy.

Limp sometimes -- it's fine.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[/ QUOTE ]

That's really bad advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it is good advice. Limping is sometimes a good idea, depending on the quality of your opponents. It is sometimes a horrible idea, depending on the quality of your opponents. For example, in HPFAP, Sklansky and Malmuth suggest not raising with AQ offsuit.

P.S. Try giving a reason for why you think that is bad advice.

[TheHenchmen]

I agree with the notion that, first and foremost, mixing up your play is a major key to success (assuming your opposition is observant enough to notice). Thus, you should never, never, never ALWAYS do anything. I could elaborate for paragraphs.... but it would only be things we all already know. There's so much to think about at the poker table that I like to keep things simple, and that's about as simple as it gets. Sometimes you limp, sometimes you raise, depending on what your primary concern is to give you the best chance of dragging some chips.
Yada, yada, yada.... Mix up your play. Bottom line.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
Yada, yada, yada.... Mix up your play. Bottom line.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that in practice -- against observant opponents -- you need to mix up your play. To do this, though, you must understand what is theoretically correct and then sometimes deviate to keep your opponents off-balance. But the question is, "Is it theoretically correct to ever limp first in?" This is a reasonable and interesting question.

I'd also argue that we are not limping first in simply to merely mix it up because that seems to be the standard play with some hands. If I limp with QJs in early position at a full hold'em table, I'm not making this play to mix it up. If I wanted to mix it up, I would raise with that hand.

With an open limp, I am basically saying, "I probably do not have the best hand at the table at the moment -- if I did, I would raise -- but there is enough money in the pot from blinds/antes that it is still correct for me to play."

In fact, it must somtimes be correct to limp. Take the extreme example: say you were playing $1/$2 stud with an ante of $1,000,000. You can't even think of folding on 3rd street. You wouldn't raise your bad hands, however, because no one else would ever fold, and you can't raise for value. So you limp.

[GreywolfNYC]

Okay. I wanted to provoke a flame or two before I replied. I know that DS says its okay to limp with group 5 hands (such as Ax suited) if the game is not too aggressive (HEPFAP at p.18). I also know that Miller tells you to limp with pairs all the way down to deuces, right? Now, Sklansky has made me more money than anyone else in the poker world and I have studied his books very hard. But limping in early position with these sort of marginal hands has cost me plenty. And it is a habit that I've been cured of.
Let's say you're UTG+2 in a full ring game that isn't too aggressive, but where the players are not total morons. You open limp with A6 of spades. Then, MP1 raises, it is folded around to the BB, who calls. You call. The flop is Ace, 10, 8, with one of your suit. The BB bets out...
My point here is now not only is your actual position difficult but your relative position is even more so as the BB has effectively put you under the gun with a less than premium hand.
All I can tell you is what I've experienced. I'm not a theorist and I'm not pretending to be one. I have discarded this practice of open-limping and it has vastly improved my game and my profit.
If you want to limp once in a while to "mix up your game", fine. But you should only be mixing up your game if your regular game isn't working. What's the point of fixing something that isn't broken?