55 flop decision with very little to go on.

[mike l.]

"This is not a good flop for you against a hand that a weak limper will hold...I'd be more inclined to bet out then to attempt a check-raise"

obvious contradiction going on here. how about just check-folding flops that arent good for you in tiny pots heads up out of position? that's not really a question btw.

[Michael Davis]

How about: The more the limper limps in in early position, the more I am likely to bet the flop?

-Michael

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
"This is not a good flop for you against a hand that a weak limper will hold...I'd be more inclined to bet out then to attempt a check-raise"

obvious contradiction going on here. how about just check-folding flops that arent good for you in tiny pots heads up out of position? that's not really a question btw.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you dude. I was trying to make an esoteric point about the merits of betting out versus check-raising, but I think check-folding is probably best, as is stated later in the post.

The only caveat I'd add is that I think optimal strategy might be different against a player who is seeing 30% of flops (and is probably limping in with lots of hands like JT, QJ, etc, as well as "legimtimate" limping hands), versus someone who is seeing say 45% of flops and playing any ace and other cruddy face card hands. Against the former player, not worth it, get the hell out. Against the later player, you probably have enough equity, and enough chance that he's going to make some incorrect calls, to warrant taking a stab.

[ike]

I checkfolded. Glad to know that line meets with some approval. For me what it came down to was the simple decision that, out of position, no line can make my opponent fold incorrectly often enough to justify playing a hand that is pretty clearly a dog to his range of hands.

[Nightwish]

Same play as before.