The limping discussion from tonight's 2+2 table

[bisonbison]

After about an hour at the table, there appeared on the horizon players who liked to limp. This sparked a discussion in which I made fun of such players and told them things like "DON'T LIMP" and "Never limp at the 2+2 table". Words were said, witticisms exchanged, hearts trampled upon (clubs and spades too), and the targets of my derision wept copiously upon their keyboards.

Frankly, I don't remember who I was arguing with, but I'd like to use this thread to spark a wider discussion of this topic, so let me reiterate my stance: if you never open-limped at the 2+2 table, it would not be a bad idea.

Limping at looser, more passive tables does a couple of things: it induces more limps and it tends to discourage raising. Part A there means that open-limping with a small pair or suited connectors can often get you enough fellow limpers to give you good odds to go do things.

Part B means that your opponent's raises after one or more limpers are pretty easy to read. For the most part, if a normal micro player raises a bunch of limpers, it's because he has a top tier hand. Or he's a LAG.

At the 2+2 table, open-limping is not likely to induce many callers behind, and it will not, for the most part, decrease the number of raises preflop. You're still likely to see a 3-bet back to you if you limp UTG, and your implied odds will just about suck unless you've got a real peach of a hand, one that could have justified a raise in the first place.

Besides, people who were saying that they might start limping with big hands were starting limping with not-big hands, and without the established threat of AA, KK or AK, no one's gonna give a second thought before they three-bet someone else's raise of your limp of A9s UTG. Then you're stuck, out of position, folding or calling.

You sacrifice your potential to steal the blinds at a heavily-raked table for the possible joys of playing JTs and 66 out of position against TAPs. I just don't get it.

Explicame, por favor.

[elitegimp]

Nothing constructive in this reply, but where can I find these 2+2 tables of which you speak? I've been playing party for a couple months, started out strong (at .5/1), and am now in a three week long slump... I'd like to watch good poker instead of having my KK beaten by someone cold-calling my pre-flop raise with Q4o. Not that I'm bitter, or anything.

[Trix]

I dont limp either at that table and I doubt that any of the people who did it had the right mix of hands to do so or was skilled enough.
I do think that some might be able to earn more by limping, instead of raise or fold, as they will be able to play more hands this way.

Abduls site (http://posev.com/poker/holdem/strategy/preflop-abdul.html) has some discussion about limping in tight games, but I´m not sure if he still likes it.

[cold_cash]

I think limping is wrong simply because the vast, vast majority of the time you'll find yourself in a spot where your choices are either:

A. Put in another bet out of position because you've just been isolated
or
B. Fold after putting dead money in the pot

I'll guess at least 100% of the hands are played for at least a single raise, if not 2.

Since a 3 handed pot here is considered a "family pot", you have to assume your implied odds are going to be lower than a gopher's basement. Actually, there's no assumption needed. If you limp w/ JTs or 44 UTG, there is no way the implied odds are going to be there to justify it. You can't even say, "Well, I was hoping some more people would have limped", because we all KNOW they're not going to.

To me, the only reason for limping in early is so you can re-raise, but even that doesn't seem like it's worth it.

I dunno.

[blackaces13]

I think it was me who was arguing for limping, but only to hear the reasons for not doing it. As with most things, I don't have my mind made up one way or the other, but I'd like to hear how you handle the following hands at the 2+2 table from the UTG+1 position if the action is folded to you.

A9s, KJs, QJs, TJs, AJo, ATo, 77 and 66.

They all seem like hands that will only have a raise called if beaten but also hands that I wouldn't want to fold. I can definitely see the benefit in raising them the more I think about it, but limping doesn't seem too crazy either.

[bisonbison]

1) the 2+2 table is an informal event that seems to happen every thursday at around 6pm Eastern. It lasts for however long people stick around, which is often several hours (as European and East Coast players drop out, West coasters step in). There'll be a post in the micro forum saying something like "2+2 table tonight?", with a table name and a password. Bring $25 and show all your winning hands. That's about it as far as rules go. Trash talking is encouraged, but not mandatory.

2) If you're in a slump, post some hands. It's likely that there are things in your game that exacerbate the negative variance that is natural to poker.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing constructive in this reply, but where can I find these 2+2 tables of which you speak? I've been playing party for a couple months, started out strong (at .5/1), and am now in a three week long slump... I'd like to watch good poker instead of having my KK beaten by someone cold-calling my pre-flop raise with Q4o. Not that I'm bitter, or anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that I would call it good poker. Different poker.

Its an unusual bird. I suspect that its a very very unusual game where there are no unraised pots at all. Its something about the mindset of the game with the 2plus2ers, limping is weak, ergo raise or fold.

Since you know every single pot is going to be raised, you can not limp. (I think there might have been two flops in the hour and a half I was there (at a pace of over a hundred hands an hour) that were seen without a raise.

It makes for a very unusual strategy. If any hand is going to be raised behind you, then if you're going to play at all, you might as well be the raiser yourself. Raise or fold.

Since you can't play limping hands, This dictates that only premium hands get played. So everybody has to respect your raise. Picking up the blinds with an Ep raise becomes common. However, since everybody knows that a raise is a premium hand, now you can raise lighter, with a hand you ordinarily would limp in, say 88 because your raise gets undue respect. But now we know players must raise lighter than usual because its raise or fold and raises get respect...so we don't have to respect their raises so...

Anyway its interesting. Its actually something of a regression to a more classical strategy. Lee Jones (ok don't throw anything at me) notes almost in passing that the traditional reason to raise with a medium pair (like 88) is to limit the field, but that we don't have to concern ourselves with it in micro because it doesn't work to limit the field. Well here we are limiting the field with our raises, so back to raising with medium-small pairs.

Also, although a premium hand strategy becomes important, that very fact lets you play non-premium hands. For instance, you raise with J-T. You are very likely to get at most one caller. You know that K-J and A-J (unless suited) are pretty unlikely to call you, as are A-10, K-10, and Q-10. A call probably indicates something Like A-K, K-Q, or A-Q. So now your hand, although an underdog to the caller, isn't dominated and if it hits the flop is likely to be the best hand.

However, a 3 bet is a very dicey proposition since it could indicate any of those hands, plus any pair down to about 77 or 88.

The result is contradictory pressures toward very tight premium hand selection and looser, less premium hand selection. And towards a ton of aggression either way.

Or at least that's the way I see it.

--Zetack

Edit: note that one advantage of a tight game where most hands are headsup is that headsup except overpairs or a dominated hand, very few hands are big dogs to any other hands. So your 66's do fairly well against A-K and you 78 doesn't absolutely suck...the only problem is that you don't know which overcards are killing you against an aggessive opponent.

[bisonbison]

I raise AJo. I fold the rest.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it was me who was arguing for limping, but only to hear the reasons for not doing it. As with most things, I don't have my mind made up one way or the other, but I'd like to hear how you handle the following hands at the 2+2 table from the UTG+1 position if the action is folded to you.

A9s, KJs, QJs, TJs, AJo, ATo, 77 and 66.

They all seem like hands that will only have a raise called if beaten but also hands that I wouldn't want to fold. I can definitely see the benefit in raising them the more I think about it, but limping doesn't seem too crazy either.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the reasons stated in my post below, J-10s, 77, and 66 are all playable for a raise first in...the others that you list are not.

--Zetack

[symphonic]

It was weird, because this was the first time i've NEVER limped at a table. All hands preflop were either raise or fold. Should I apply this tactic to regular party .5/1 games? Or is limping reasonable at times there?

[thirddan]

limping is ok at most tables because the other players do not play as tight or as aggressively as the 22 table...i think bison gave some examples in this thread...

[tech]

Fantastic post Zetack. You are exactly right. LAG gets the money at the 2+2 table because the table plays too tight, IMO. A true maniac would wreak havoc there until everyone caught on. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[GuyOnTilt]

Hey Zetack,

For the reasons stated in my post below, J-10s, 77, and 66 are all playable for a raise first in...the others that you list are not.

That's absolutely incorrect. You cannot convince me that I should raise JTs more often in EP than I should KJs at that table or any other. Your reasoning that, "A call probably indicates something Like A-K, K-Q, or A-Q. So now your hand, although an underdog to the caller, isn't dominated and if it hits the flop is likely to be the best hand," is absurd. First, nobody's going to be cold-calling with those hands. AK is going to reraise, KQ is going to fold, and AQ is going to do one or the other. Second, why in the world are you putting your opponents on these specific 3 hands BEFORE THE ACTION EVEN GETS TO THEM PREFLOP???

GoT

[elitegimp]

wow, thanks for all that! I probably missed it somewhere, is it safe to assume this all happens on Party? I will be on the lookout for this, although I'm a grad student w/ a final next Friday so it may take a few weeks for me to show up.

Thanks again for hooking a new guy up with info, I look forward to participating here.

[Trix]

It depends on the table texture and your table image.

You need to adjust all the time when playing that table.

[Raiser]

Hey guys. Last night was my first at the 2+2 table and it was a blast. I've never played at a tight/agressive table before. The time I was there (80 hands or so), EVERY pot was raised pre-flop.

Anyway, I had a question about EP play at a table like this. I got 88 twice UTG and decided that if I was going to play I should raise - which I did both times. Is this a legitimate play at this table?

[DoctorDrew]

Last night was my first 2+2 table. Most fun I've had playing poker online. As Zetack stated it was nice actually having a CHANCE to steal the blinds, unlike the usual Party tables.

Since I was close to bison and it was my first table---no way I even thought about limping.

[Joe Tall]

I'd like to watch good poker instead of having my KK beaten by someone cold-calling my pre-flop raise with Q4o.

Great table selection, a key to good poker.

Welcome to the forum,
Joe Tall

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
Limping at looser, more passive tables does a couple of things: it induces more limps and it tends to discourage raising. Part A there means that open-limping with a small pair or suited connectors can often get you enough fellow limpers to give you good odds to go do things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Tommy coined the term 'limplied odds' in this thread: click here. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=mediumholdem&Number=409633 &Forum=mediumholdem&Words=limplied%20odds&Match=En tire%20Phrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=6months&Ma in=409633&Search=true#Post409633)

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, people who were saying that they might start limping with big hands were starting limping with not-big hands, and without the established threat of AA, KK or AK, no one's gonna give a second thought before they three-bet someone else's raise of your limp of A9s UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I frequented the 2+2 table, I used to set up a few w/a limp re-raise w/a big hand from UTG, AA, KK, QQ, AKs, AQs. After several weeks of this action, I was able to limp w/22 UTG and no one would raise. I took the right players at the table and several events but it was fun. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Generally, limping at that table is just dumb.

Sounds like the table has re-established itself, eh? Am I welcome?

Peace,
Joe Tall

[Festus22]

"Sounds like the table has re-established itself, eh? Am I welcome?"

Surely you jest in even asking. I think I speak for all when I say a resounding ABSOLUTELY!!!

(And just so you know, I think it is way cool that you continue to contribute to this forum even though you've "graduated".)

[PokerBob]

I think you can raise 77 and 66 as the first in, but IMO JTs is asking for trouble. The only way anyone at that table calls or 3-bets an open raiser from EP is with TT or a higher pair, or with AKs, AKo, AQs or maybe AQo. The instant someone else enters the pot, you are behind.

All of these hands destroy JTs, but only the pairs have 66 or 77 in major trouble.

[bmedwar]

so is the 2+2 .50/1 game comparable to higher limits (10/20 and up)? it sounds very similar to the game described in HFAP, and very similar to the way that Poki's Poker Academy plays (stealing the blinds with EP raise rings a bell). As a complete novice, I read HFAP and played a ton of hands on PPA. Imagine the shock when I started playing micro-limit partypoker with that as my only background. It took a long time to make adjustments before I had any luck at all.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you can raise 77 and 66 as the first in, but IMO JTs is asking for trouble. The only way anyone at that table calls or 3-bets an open raiser from EP is with TT or a higher pair, or with AKs, AKo, AQs or maybe AQo. The instant someone else enters the pot, you are behind.

All of these hands destroy JTs, but only the pairs have 66 or 77 in major trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason JTs is playable is that it isn't likely to be dominated by a single caller. If you hit the flop you are very likely to be ahead...If you miss...well how good a post flop player are you?



Note, however, that JTs is a lousy calling hand since somebody may very well open raise with something like A-J.

--Zetack

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Zetack,



You cannot convince me that I should raise JTs more often in EP than I should KJs at that table or any other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. Although, note I didn't say you should raise with JTs.

[ QUOTE ]
Your reasoning that, "A call probably indicates something Like A-K, K-Q, or A-Q. So now your hand, although an underdog to the caller, isn't dominated and if it hits the flop is likely to be the best hand," is absurd. First, nobody's going to be cold-calling with those hands. AK is going to reraise, KQ is going to fold, and AQ is going to do one or the other. Second, why in the world are you putting your opponents on these specific 3 hands BEFORE THE ACTION EVEN GETS TO THEM PREFLOP???

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure if everybody folds, you're golden. If you get called (or raised) though...in a tight tough game, do you anticipate A-J, K-J, Q-J, A-10, K-10, Q-10 calling an Ep raise? If so, my reasoning is pretty damn flawed. But if those hands won't play to your Ep raise, you have a good hand if you get hit by the flop.

And of course AA-1010 will play with you, but you're not any happier about those hands playing you if you raised with--what did you suggest-- K-Js.

[ QUOTE ]
Your reasoning that ... is absurd


[/ QUOTE ]

Absurdly yours,

--Zetack

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]

Sounds like the table has re-established itself, eh? Am I welcome?

Peace,
Joe Tall

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, we'd love to have you....if you can handle the stakes. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[afs]

Well, other folks said pretty much everything in this post, but I think it's worth putting down again, in maybe slightly different form. It sounds like many people are leary or downright opposed to these thoughts, but I haven't yet seen a good rebuttal. And I'd really like to see one, so maybe this'll prompt one.

The first, obvious, reason to limp at the 2+2 table is to get more money in the pot w/ good hands by limp-raising. You can be almost assured that if anyone enters the pot after you, they're going to raise. It's obvious why you'd want to do this w/ AA/KK, and equally obvious that if you do this too often you're not going to make nearly enough on these hands. But so & then you can also limp w/ weaker hands, obviously, and limp-raise to get more respect w/ more marginal holdings.

So now a limp indicates one of two things -- you either have a _very_ strong hand, or a weaker (but decent) hand. When you have KJs, you'll get more respect than you deserve, you'll get in cheaper, and you may be able to win more or lose less; when you have AA you'll get less respect than you deserve, and may be able to eke out an extra bet or two. In any case, the big advantage I see from occasionally limping is it seems you'll be able to play more hands. Assuming you can win them, all other things being equal, you want to play as many hands as possible.

If you're less predictable pre-flop, it seems like you can be more effective post-flop. It seems like some small amount of the anti-limping sentiment comes from not wanting to see 'weak' play. A good limp here would be a very aggressive, ambiguous move. Clearly you'll only ever limp from EP, and only w/ a certain sort of hand, though I'm not sure what -- (I'm thinking high pairs and 'lower' suited cards -- stuff like QJs and KTs)

Trix posted a link to <a href="http://posev.com/poker/holdem/strategy/preflop-abdul.html">abdul's site</a> which is very relevant here, & worth repeating.

I'm not saying you should limp a lot. I'm not saying you're losing much by never limping. Unless you're very good, doing so probably hurts more than it helps. I know I don't have any business limping -- but then again, I haven't much business playing in the game at all, least if I wanna _win_ -- seeing this sort of play for the first time put me on a kind of pseudo-tilt, oscillating between LAG and weak tight -- a scary and enlightening experience.

I'm probably full of it. Lemme know in what ways.

Cheers,
Anders

[bisonbison]

The thing is, most experienced players have a bit of an intuitive grasp on how often premium hands come along.

How often do you find a Group 1 hand in EP (i.e. one where limp-reraising is a real good strategy)? How often can you limp or limp-reraise and represent a big hand without revealing that you're obviously expanding your EP hand selection? How many of those second-rate hands can win unimproved against the hands that people will raise you with?

You play for two hours. Let's say we play 100 hands/hour. Roughly 1/4 of those hands come in EP. In 50 hands, how often do you see the kind of premium hands that might qualify for a legit limp-reraise? 1? 2? And you can't limp all of those strong hands because they weaken the threat of your other EP raises. But if you don't limp with these premium hands first, why is anyone gonna take your other limping seriously?

I am opposed to limping because it is a weak play. I'm also opposed to limping because it keeps the emphasis on preflop play, which is not where your money is really won and lost.

If you want to limp-reraise AA and the like in EP, that's fine. Hell, I've done it at the 2+2 table. Hell, I've induced limping fits at the 2+2 table. But a lot of this talk about expanding your possible hands is wishful thinking. It amounts to: I wish I could play this hand I play in my normal game. The slim chance that you'll make it in at a reasonable price * the chance that you'll win < the money you are throwing away when things go awry. Your postflop edge against a bunch of 2+2ers is nowhere near what it is against a bunch of regular players, even if a lot of the players here are weak-tight heads up.

If you want to loosen up preflop at the 2+2 table, loosen up your raises. God knows I do sometimes. But I play 12% of my hands. I don't dilute my steals by playing easily dominated crap.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
You are exactly right. LAG gets the money at the 2+2 table because the table plays too tight, IMO. A true maniac would wreak havoc there until everyone caught on.


[/ QUOTE ]

One problem with this theory tech, the winner at these tables always shows their hand. If you made a lot of loose raises and showed them then you would no longer get the respect or tightness in response to your raises that you would need to be successful.

If you decided you wouldn't show your hands then someone would just pay the $3 or whatever it was to look you up real quick and you'd have to start either winning with bad hands or showing down some good hands to maintain any respect to your raises. I think the table would catch on a lot quicker than you think. Like maybe one orbit.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also opposed to limping because it keeps the emphasis on preflop play,

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get this, I would think the opposite would be true.

Also, I think you're right about limping. Limping is almost NEVER a good idea at the 2+2 tables. I'm also glad I decided to argue for limping because I now understand the agruments for and against limping a whole lot better than I did last night.

[afs]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, most experienced players have a bit of an intuitive grasp on how often premium hands come along.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this is a good reason why I or other folks probably shouldn't be limping. Or reallyreallyreally think about it if we did. Clearly doesn't have much bearing on whether it might be right or not, though.

[ QUOTE ]
You play for two hours. Let's say we play 100 hands/hour. Roughly 1/4 of those hands come in EP. In 50 hands, how often do you see the kind of premium hands that might qualify for a legit limp-reraise? 1? 2? And you can't limp all of those strong hands because they weaken the threat of your other EP raises. But if you don't limp with these premium hands first, why is anyone gonna take your other limping seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, for the purpose of the limp-(possible)reraise, I'd expand EP to the four positions in front of the blinds at a full table. You should see a category one hand just over one time in fifty, so you'll have a potential limping opportunity around .8 times per 100-hand-hour. But you're probably only entering in (expanded) EP 4 or 5 times _anyway_, so .8 starts to look a lot bigger.

You should be the first to recognize that the fact you're only playing for two hours doesn't make a huge difference if you plan on playing the same game next week, and the week after.

[ QUOTE ]
I am opposed to limping because it is a weak play. I'm also opposed to limping because it keeps the emphasis on preflop play, which is not where your money is really won and lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

It probably is a weak play most of the time, but that just means it's being done wrong. And sure -- postflop play matters more. Us students should probably spend more time worrying about postflop play than preflop. Doesn't mean we oughtn't worry about both.

[ QUOTE ]
But a lot of this talk about expanding your possible hands is wishful thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm probably not being clear. I'm not imagining limp-raising QQ will let you play A8s. I _am_ saying that frequent EP limp-raising will let you play a few more hands in EP, and/or help you play the hands you do play slightly more effectively. If you get 1.6 category one hands in EP every two hours, and limp-(possibly)raise one of these, you should also be able to limp-(possibly)raise one other hand, whether it's one you'd play anyway or not. If you're only playing 6-12 hands in EP over these two hours anyway, this is a real & significant difference. You now have more flexibility in your post-flop play for both hands -- between 1/3 and 1/6 of the hands you're playing in EP. A skilled player should be able to pull out an extra fraction of a bet, I'd think. And .1BB over 200 hands, or whatever it is, DOES make a difference.

Again, I'm not saying I or any other particular person can do this correctly. I'm not saying anyone here is giving up much (or anything) by never limping. But I do think a lot of skilled players _would_ limp occasionally at the 2+2 table, and be correct for doing so.