Is "implied limping" a valid concept.

[stigmata]

Was just thinking about this whilst going through a run of ultra-boring cards.

The concept of “implied limping”: The theory that an early limp will have the dual effect of A) encouraging limpers and B) discouraging later raises.

To illustrate the point, lets take a look at a an example hand.

Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (10 handed). Assume all players are fundamentally OK. Their hole cars are listed below, with "--" indicating the cards are unplayable and therefore ignored:

UTG: --
UTG1: 55
MP1: --
MP2: 22
MP3: --
MP4: --
CO: JTs
But: ATo
SB: 85s
BB: --


Scenario 1

The game has been rather tight for the last couple of orbits. UTG1 decides he does not have implied odds for the set and folds. MP2 fears a raise behind, and therefore folds. CO attempts a risky blind steal with JTs. The button respects CO’s raises, and decides to fold his likely-dominated hand.

Both blinds fold and CO wins the pot with JTs

UTG1 congratulates himself on his excellent poker predictions skills, and is glad he didn’t limp in with 55, only to get raised behind.

Scenario 2

The game has been slightly loose for the last couple of orbits. UTG1 decides that there are going to be two or three limpers behind, and will get implied odds on making a set. After UTG1 limps, MP2 decides that he will get one or two more people coming in, and also limps in for set value. CO limps in, as does the button, and small blind completes.

UTG1 congratulates himself on his excellent poker prediction skills, as he got enough limpers to give him implied odds on making his set. [Furthermore, the flop comes A52 and he wins his biggest pot of the night].


So the illustration shows that with certain (fairly typical) card distributions, a limp (or two) in early position will encourage further limpers and discourage raises. In fact, I think this is even more applicable to 6-max tables, where you essentially have 2 early positions and 2 late positions. On some tables, if the early players fold, you can almost guarantee an attempted blind steal.


So this is all just theoretical – how useful is it as a concept in poker? If you are at a table that is giving you a borderline call/fold situation in early position, your call may encourage the type of hand to make the call profitable. But by how much? I guess to really validate it as a concept, you would need to quantify how much limping encourages limpers and discourages raises. I figure these values are probably lower than 1 (perhaps in the 0.5 range?), which on some tables could swing a fold to a call situation. However my estimate is a wild guess, any better ideas?

To be honest though, I think that at best, this theory is just an excuse for me to play a few more hands when I am going through a run of ultra-boring cards!!! Probably why I thought of it….

Anyway, though I would open it for discussion, if anyone had any thoughts on it, or please feel free to rubbish it, if you feel that way...