The limping discussion from tonight's 2+2 table

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[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.