Chris Ferguson and open-limping

[burningyen]

Jesus says that open-limping is "never, ever" a good play (in limit or no-limit). It seems to me that there must be situations when open-limping is sound. I did a search here and on Google and couldn't find any arguments refuting his strategy. Is he wrong? If so, how wrong is he?

[2005]

IMHO he's wrong. I think there are alot of situations where open limping is fine i.e. 66 UTG and deep stacks, 89s in the CO and deep stacks, I could name a bunch, but I think you get the idea.

Gavin

[Sluss]

With Chris's image open limping would never be good. If your tight aggressive and only playing a small percentage of hands then limping is poor.

If you Laggy and getting involved in lots of pots then occasionally limping can throw off your opponents.

In general habitual open limping is bad.

[SossMan]

I just posted a thread about openlimping. I think that it can be argued that with stacks < 40bb, openlimping from MP or later is probably almost always wrong (unless you are setting a trap for a very aggressive player behind you).

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
I just posted a thread about openlimping. I think that it can be argued that with stacks < 40bb, openlimping from MP or later is probably almost always wrong (unless you are setting a trap for a very aggressive player behind you).

[/ QUOTE ]

But if you follow this mentality, don't you have to do it at least some of the time with 98s style hands so that you're not terribly readable?

[dmk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just posted a thread about openlimping. I think that it can be argued that with stacks < 40bb, openlimping from MP or later is probably almost always wrong (unless you are setting a trap for a very aggressive player behind you).

[/ QUOTE ]

for what its worth, i limp w/ AK/QQ about the same amount of time as i do w/ something like 98s and 55. Its not often, but it happens on occassion.

But if you follow this mentality, don't you have to do it at least some of the time with 98s style hands so that you're not terribly readable?

[/ QUOTE ]

[SossMan]

if you are concerned with metagame (i.e. you play with this person more than this tourney, or you are at the table long enough for Shania to matter)

[whiskeytown]

I'm getting a little tired of this crap - (not you, of course) -

I'm working on an article which I shall dump on le'blog and maybe on the Internet magazine pretty soon. Basically, I believe there are two mindsets to poker.

One mindset is that there is one correct course of action, and all other actions are -EV or at least less EV - while I don't believe Mason/David/Ed believe this, I do believe there are a lot of drones who will quote a line or two out of SSHE or HEFAP and say this is the only way to play and make the most money.

If these guys played rock/paper/scissors, they would be posting how they've made $50000 a month playing rock, and if you don't play rock, you can't crush your opponents for the maximum amount every week.

I on the other hand, came from a wargaming background. I realize that there tactics that work better against one tactic then the other. Sometimes when faced with Opponent A, Tactic A is the best move, but sometimes it's the other way.

I was reading an article on the 20 Mil. big game with Andy Beal, and they noted that Gus Hansen's super aggressive style wasn't working vs. Beal, simply because Beal didn't care, and he didn't muck out of respect or fear. When playing a rock/calling station, bluffing isn't the best tactic. (although I would also argue the Gus Hansen of limit play is nowhere near as good as the NL Gus Hansen)

So, no I'm not going to agree with Chris - and in general, when playing overtly aggressive players, I will play more of a check/call game, trying to trap them for bluffs and overbets while paying small sums and raises for a chance at flopping a set or a monster that I can then use to extract a ton of money from my opponent - simply reraising into them or raising with 33 isn't always the best strategy.

in fact, I believe there are very few absolutes in poker - except don't muck until you see your opponent's hand face up - maybe a couple others, but there is always a course of action (slowplaying AA for a reraise vs. raising off the bat) that can be argued/justified depending upon the makeup of the opponents at your table.

You posted this just to get my goat, didn't you... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

RB

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus says that open-limping is "never, ever" a good play

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Low buy-in SNG, 1st level, folded to you in UTG+2 or something with 77. Open-limping is not only "a good play", but it's the best one. Therefore, Jesus is wrong.

I can think of many other spots in which open-limping could be good, for many and different reasons. However, there are probably certain game-strategies in which open-limping is never ever a good play (or at least: there are better options, but it does not mean that there aren't worse ones).

Out of context, Jesus' comment is kind of silly, IMO.

[burningyen]

[ QUOTE ]
Out of context, Jesus' comment is kind of silly, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's the full context:

[ QUOTE ]
Never limp in. PUMP IT or DUMP IT!
One of the most important rules of Hold'Em -- Limit or No Limit -- is to never, ever call as the first player to enter a pot before the flop. Either pump up the pot with a raise, or dump your cards in the muck. If your hand isn't strong enough for a raise, it's too weak for a call. This tactic makes it more difficult for your opponents to read your hand, and it makes it impossible for the big blind to ever see a flop for free when you're in the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Never limp in. PUMP IT or DUMP IT!
One of the most important rules of Hold'Em -- Limit or No Limit -- is to never, ever call as the first player to enter a pot before the flop. Either pump up the pot with a raise, or dump your cards in the muck. If your hand isn't strong enough for a raise, it's too weak for a call. This tactic makes it more difficult for your opponents to read your hand, and it makes it impossible for the big blind to ever see a flop for free when you're in the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK I see the context now, and it doesn't really go deeper than your original quote of him. I don't know if that's how Jesus really thinks, or maybe that's just a way to put some simple concepts into beginners' mind or something. But I think that in NL (maybe even more than in limit, I'm not sure), open limping for certain reasons can definitely be a strong and good move. One simple reason: against opponents who play post-flop poorly, you might want to see a lot of flops cheaply, and exploit mistakes later on in the hand, *without* building a pot PF. In NL, specifically with deeper stacks, the bigger and most important decisions are made post-flop. Your PF actions can change a lot, without it necessarily being a bad thing.

This is only one simple reason why open-limping can be good.

But again, maybe Jesus had his own reasons to say such a thing, I'm really not in a position to say he is wrong or anything, of course.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
I just posted a thread about openlimping. I think that it can be argued that with stacks < 40bb, openlimping from MP or later is probably almost always wrong (unless you are setting a trap for a very aggressive player behind you).

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with that. Suppose stacks are 35xBB and the players to act behind you are generally weak-passive. Then with 22, for example, why would you do anything other than open-limp?

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just posted a thread about openlimping. I think that it can be argued that with stacks < 40bb, openlimping from MP or later is probably almost always wrong (unless you are setting a trap for a very aggressive player behind you).

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with that. Suppose stacks are 35xBB and the players to act behind you are generally weak-passive. Then with 22, for example, why would you do anything other than open-limp?

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't get paid when you flop a set? I dunno, I guess you can steal postflop liberally though, which makes any 2 viable then...

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
you don't get paid when you flop a set? I dunno, I guess you can steal postflop liberally though, which makes any 2 viable then...

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly the opposite.

I said "weak-passive", not "tight-passive".

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just posted a thread about openlimping. I think that it can be argued that with stacks < 40bb, openlimping from MP or later is probably almost always wrong (unless you are setting a trap for a very aggressive player behind you).

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with that. Suppose stacks are 35xBB and the players to act behind you are generally weak-passive. Then with 22, for example, why would you do anything other than open-limp?

[/ QUOTE ]