Chris Ferguson and open-limping

[burningyen]

Jesus says that open-limping is "never, ever" a good play (in limit or no-limit). It seems to me that there must be situations when open-limping is sound. I did a search here and on Google and couldn't find any arguments refuting his strategy. Is he wrong? If so, how wrong is he?

[2005]

IMHO he's wrong. I think there are alot of situations where open limping is fine i.e. 66 UTG and deep stacks, 89s in the CO and deep stacks, I could name a bunch, but I think you get the idea.

Gavin

[Sluss]

With Chris's image open limping would never be good. If your tight aggressive and only playing a small percentage of hands then limping is poor.

If you Laggy and getting involved in lots of pots then occasionally limping can throw off your opponents.

In general habitual open limping is bad.

[SossMan]

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).

[gumpzilla]

[ 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 ]

But if you follow this mentality, don't you have to do it at least some of the time with 98s style hands so that you're not terribly readable?

[dmk]

[ 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 ]

for what its worth, i limp w/ AK/QQ about the same amount of time as i do w/ something like 98s and 55. Its not often, but it happens on occassion.

But if you follow this mentality, don't you have to do it at least some of the time with 98s style hands so that you're not terribly readable?

[/ QUOTE ]

[SossMan]

if you are concerned with metagame (i.e. you play with this person more than this tourney, or you are at the table long enough for Shania to matter)

[M.B.E.]

[ 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?

[bugstud]

[ 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...

[M.B.E.]

[ 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".