More On Limping

[David Sklansky]

When Chris Ferguson, Tom Weideman, and Howard Lederer say that when first in you should always raise, in a limit holdem game, they themselves know that there are exceptions.

Clearly it is sometimes better to call than raise if you are in a game where opponents play very loose preflop for one bet but perfectly for two. Or if they play terribly postflop but correctly preflop.

But what about if they all play "perfectly" (as do you). In that case are Chris, Tom, and Howard right? Without exception and regardless of the structure?

[Fnord]

Opening from middle to late position has blind steal value that makes limping incorrect. So that leaves two situations to consider. Opening from early position at a fairly large table and limping behind other limpers. However, if everyone plays "perfectly" and it's never correct to open limp then the second situation is moot.

Which brings us to consider the value of limping vs raising hands like AJs, JTs (where we welcome a multi-pot) and 88 (implied odds unless we're heads-up) from UTG.

One other random thought. If it's never correct to open limp, then limp/re-raising is also pointless.

[Coilean]

The primary trouble with open limping against "perfect" preflop players as I see it is that profitable open limping hands comprise a pretty narrow range of hands (mostly smaller suited aces and pocket pairs), making you fairly readable postflop unless you start resorting to some overly complex limp reraise preflop counterstrategies a la Abdul. I try only to open limp when bad players are in the game, but I like overlimping (or perhaps raising) after the bad players have already limped even better [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

[The Dude]

Since everybody plays the exact same way as we do, we (in theory) know exactly the probability of getting raised when we open (a) limp, or (b) raise from any specific position. Knowing these probabilities, by using game theory we can come up with an optimal frequency to limp, raise, or limp re-raise.

I do not know the math needed to come up with those frequencies, but I do know that the correct frequency to open limp is > 0%.

Now, in real life, if playing in a tight game (but not against perfect opponents) it is very possible for it to be correct to never open limp - or at least so close to optimal that it's not worth discussing.

[RydenStoompala]

Except for the purpose of play variance, I think it's incorrect most of the time to open limp in early position.

[SinCityGuy]

Open-limping only has merit if it is part of an overall limp-reraising strategy. If you only open-limp with hands like JTs and 88, then you will will be burning a lot of chips in most mid-limit holdem games.

[MMMMMM]

"Without exception and regardless of the structure?"

By this are you referring to uncommon structures such as very small blinds? If the blinds were much smaller, say more comparable in size to the ante structure in 10-20 stud, then that would make limping increasingly attractive. So the question rather becomes: is the current common structure actually high enough to mean you should never open-limp?

The more general question has been in the back of my mind for a long time.

How about a list of reasons to open-raise and a list of reasons to open-limp, as well as lists of reasons NOT to take those actions (i.e. the negatives that accrue from each action): then, try to estimate the value of each reason, then sum the lists? Also included should be some estimate of the value of unpredictability since (I think) we can assume that the sometimes open-limping strategy will include a wider range of hands than the only-open-raising strategy.

only-open-raising is in large part a more defensive strategy (A: hand camouflage, B: less susceptibility to losing a pot due to opponent's aggression, C: not subject to playing a hand hoping for implied odds and getting raised). It is also more aggressive in that it is more blind-steal-oriented. However it is also less aggressive in three ways: A: you are playing fewer hands and thus have fewer chances to win the blinds (postflop winning blinds counts too although it is less likely), B: you have fewer chances to garner implied odds and huge pots, C: and you have fewer chances to trap someone holding a weaker kicker.

Almost time for a walk and Mystic Market (;-)) and I'll mull it over some more out there.

[Sqred]

This is such a difficult question that i try to create different scenarios I could conceive where the advantages of open limping outnumber the disadvantages. Against good players who don't have a lot of respect for your play I think open limping with really big hands has it's place, and in fact it is probably supereior to open raising. Against an agressive player who doesn't think a lot of my preflop play, I love the chance to open limp with AA, KK, AK, and let him isolate me with his AQ, AJ, KQ. But how long can I get away with this? Probably not very long. I like to think of Default plays with some minor exceptions when playing limit hold'em. Thus a limp reraise with QJs or JTs, when the conditions are right, and a limp reraise strategy with AA and to lesser extent KK and AKs seems to make sense against a solid lineup.

That being said, I think the always open raise strategy should be the default play unless strong evidence suggests the contrary.

Just a little input from the seat of the pants faction [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[MMMMMM]

A": you are playing fewer hands and thus have fewer chances to win the blinds (postflop winning blinds counts too although it is less likely),"

Actually, even though you are playing more hands against the blinds, that doesn't necessarily mean you have more chances to win them, because you are giving up your chances to win them preflop.

[Phat Mack]

But what about if they all play "perfectly" (as do you).

Then it might be time to raise or limp randomly.