Re: Chris Ferguson and open-limping
 

[ 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.

Re: Chris Ferguson and open-limping
 

[ 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?

Re: Chris Ferguson and open-limping
 

[ 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...

Re: Chris Ferguson and open-limping
 

[ 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".

Re: Chris Ferguson and open-limping
 

[ 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 ]