Calling preflop raises after limping" Revisited

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi Everyone,
Back around September there was a thread called:

Calling preflop raises after limping: How to exploit & avoid

The initial post I've quoted below. Seems general concensus was that the second call gets even better pot odds than the first, so you should always call the second time around.

So I'm sure I must've missed something...

What would you fold in this position? My guess is anything that depends on implied odds for it's +EV since you are paying more upfront, thus wrecking the ration of upfront cost to back end bets.

Sincerely,
AA

"In LL games I regularly see that 5 players will limp in, get raised by an LP, and then all of the players will call. It looks something like this: limp, limp, limp, limp, limp, raise, call, call, call, call, call.

Two questions:

1. How do I exploit this? One idea is to raise for value in LP with drawing hands (e.g., 77, QJs).

2. How do I avoid this problem? Which hands should I fold to a preflop raiser after limping in?"

[Ed Miller]

I don't understand your question. When you have limped in for a full bet (i.e. are not in the blinds) and it is raised behind you and one bet back to you... you call. This is a very simple situation.

[ZManODS]

What would you fold in this position?

I would say not much since you are, like you said, getting better pot odds. The situation would tend to differ if you knew the raiser to be VERY tight (holding high pair), then you could fold some lesser hands.

Im still not sure if i understand youre question though.

[rigoletto]

Sometimes I don't call online because I hit the fold button by mistake.

I'm not sure I understand your question either. But concerning question 1: you can even reraise for value and deception in EP with good drawing hands (suited brodway cards, suited A's with decent kicker etc.)!

[SoBeDude]

I think you should almost always call.

UNLESS you've limped in with crap and you shouldn't be in the hand to begin with. In that position, fold and save the bet. the flop ain't gonna help ya.

I read somewhere that if after you limp and someone raises, if you reaction is a *groan* and you're bothered by the raise, its time to tighen up your limping requirements. I think thats great advice.

If your cards justify you being in the hand, then they justify calling the raise.

Now on the other hand, when do you want to be the raiser? You want to punish the limpers every chance you get. From LP, raise with most hands worth a LP call, including middle suited connectors.

-Scott

[pudley4]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Seems general concensus was that the second call gets even better pot odds than the first, so you should always call the second time around.

So I'm sure I must've missed something...


[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're not missing anything. This is correct.

This originally was posted by mdlm. Ultimately the question was: "If I'm always correct to call a raise after I limp, am I correct to always raise instead?"

The answer is a resounding NO.

To answer your 2 questions:

1 - How do I exploit this? One idea is to raise for value in LP with drawing hands (e.g., 77, QJs).

Answer: Raise with big pairs and big suited cards. Don't necessarily raise with smaller pairs. Don't raise with smaller suited connectors.

2 - How do I avoid this problem?

Don't limp with crap. [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img]

Which hands should I fold to a preflop raiser after limping in?"

Um...none.

[Tommy Angelo]

"Seems general concensus was that the second call gets even better pot odds than the first, so you should always call the second time around."

I don't see how increasing the number of opponents and the size of the pot at the same time improves the odds. And I don't see why I "should always call" after limping in and later that round finding out that the guy in the big blind has a big pair or AK.

But then, I have to think that way, in order to justify the many times that I've limped or raised before the flop and then folded to a raise.

Tommy

[Pringle]

The basic idea here is that the damage has already been done. You might not have limped if you would have known that it would be raised; but, your original limping money is now already in the pot, and you are being offered a new proposition:

Would you like to see the flop for one bet?

So you answer yes.

But the lesson to be learned is that you should try to forsee those late position raises, or at least roughly know the probability that they will happen, so you can avoid limping from middle position with 55 or whatever (unless you're getting sufficient callers).

Pringle

[tewall]

If there are n opponents, and the pot the first time around is P then you are getting P:1 for the first call and P+n:1 for the second. Even though your chances are worse (in view of the raise), they won't be enough worse to make the improved P+n:1 call not worth making.

The problem of getting strung along for extra bets is why limping in early is risky and why the hands you can limp in differ depending on how loose and passive the game is.

The later the position you have, the less likely someone will raise behind you, and worth your position in later rounds drawing hands will be easier to play.

The way to avoid the problem is to be very cautious when limping early, being careful to do so in games where you're likely to get many players seeing the flop and they play passively.

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi Tommy,
Well, yeah I'm with you here. I was thinking that if I limped in with a hand that depends on implied odds and the later rounds of betting having a higher limit, these might become a waste to a raise. (For at least two reasons... you might be up against a better hand from the raiser... you now have to put up twice the cash.)


Most other folks seem to think not though.

I agree that if the hand was decent to start with, in the limp the raise scenario, it simply means the you're betting the same odds at a higher limit, effectively.

I believe another poster pointed out that if you were calling two bets cold with the same limping hand you'd muck.

I'm not sure how to factor that in yet.

I suppose I'll have to sit down with a piece of paper and see what I can figure.

I can see the rationale that says you may have the same pot equity percentagewise whether there's a second bet to call or not... but again... seems counter intuitive if you believe the raiser is representing strength with his raise rather than a bluff/semi-bluff.

Sincerely,
AA