Theoretical justification for limping

[bobbyi]

The blind is simply a forced bet. Rather than thinking of it as equivalent to an ante, you can think of it as if holdem were a game with no antes and the big blind is a guy who just decided to bet on the first street without looking at his cards. Calling here isn't that different theoretically than calling a bet in a multiway pot on any other street and you would call for the same reasons. The only difference is that since his bet was forced, his range of hands is wide, but this still doesn't make it too different from facing a bet on the flop in a multiway pot from a guy who will bet with pretty much anything.

[William Jockusch]

It feels like it is relevant to the discussion to figure out how much limping tends to narrow the field.

Here are some numbers, from party 15/30, courtesy of poker tracker:

I looked at the hands where all of the following were true:

1) I was sitting 6 or more seats off the button.
2) I did not have a blind
3) I raised first in.

It turns out this was a total of 395 hands. Here are the outcomes:

I won the pot right there 42 times -- 11%.
Of the times I did not win it right there, an average of 3.1 players saw the flop.

Unfortunately, I don't have a good way to examine the times where I limped first in.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]
It feels like it is relevant to the discussion to figure out how much limping tends to narrow the field.

Here are some numbers, from party 15/30, courtesy of poker tracker:


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the full numbers from poker tracker are relevent. There exist some tables where limping will narrow the field and others where it doesn't. You have probably played at both types of tables, so both are incorporated in your stats. You just need to recognize the other players' different requirements for calling a limper and calling a raise (this is practically zero in the case of some players) and figure out how a mix of different players with different requirements will act in concert.

[K C]

It makes sense and it's not weak or passive. It's the same reasoning as why you wouldn't want to play hands in EP that you would play later.

If you're sitting with a hand worth barely calling, are you not concerned about being behind with it? Now, you're calling with it is going to take into account the risk of being raised. And by definition this is a hand which can't stand a raise. Of course we could not play it at all, but we'd be abandoning profitable situations.

Now, you're suggesting that we raise with it instead of calling. We can debate whether this move was a good one or not in terms of equity, but unless you're prepared to call the re-raise with it, you're risking an additional bet to a re-raise.

I gather though that you would call the re-raise here. Remember, we're talking hands barely worth calling with. Are you serious man? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] The guy with the re-raising hand is going to happy to see that [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

As far as getting into more trouble by not raising, this tells me you're more concerned about winning hands than maximizing your profit. You can't really get in trouble by not raising, however, you'll cut your profit expectations by not raising when it's correct to do so. By the same token though, you'll cut your profit by raising when it's incorrect.

KC
kingcobrapoker.com

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
The question here is are there hands which are worth playing in early position but which you would not like to call a reraise with. Hands like TT/99/KQs or possibly AJo if the game is not too aggressive. The problem with them is that they are unlikely to be the best hand at the moment and that even if they are, raising with them in early position could induce several callers each of whom make it more correct for others to call and to call with draws on the flop because of the resulting pot size. And if you are reraised behind by a tight-aggressive player who might hold a range of hands, with you holding TT and resulting in a heads up pot, you are often just better off investing fewer bets in the pot and checking and calling to the river versus a rag board losing less money to an overpair and inducing bets from someone who will keep betting AK with no improvement.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is just wrong. All of the hands you list ARE likely to be the best, or damn close to it. Furthermore, by limping in you make a terrible mistake - letting people see a very cheap (and for the BB, free) flop. You need to be raising with ALL of these hands in early position EVERY time.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not good *general* advice, IMHO. If you quantified it to Limit HE, that might be correct. I think that is incorrect general advice in a NL game.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Theoretical justification for limping

[/ QUOTE ]

To induce bad calls from your opponets.

Say your in a game where people will typically over call with hands like J7s, K7o, K2s etc, but will need something like AJ or KQ to call a raise. Can you see why you might limp wiht KJ but raise with AK?

[BarronVangorToth]

Hopefully I don't insult people on this board who constantly give this advice, but one of the things I read often that I find to be untrue is this:

"Never limp."

In poker, there is always reason to mix up your game and to do certain things at certain times for certain reasons.

If you're at a table in early position where you know if you raise, most will fold, but if you limp, you'll have 8 or 9 callers, what do you do with hands like A-X suited? And I want to see the flop with for 9 SB's with pocket 6's, not for 4 SB's that are just me and one guy.

Limp sometimes -- it's fine.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[GreywolfNYC]

[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully I don't insult people on this board who constantly give this advice, but one of the things I read often that I find to be untrue is this:

"Never limp."

In poker, there is always reason to mix up your game and to do certain things at certain times for certain reasons.

If you're at a table in early position where you know if you raise, most will fold, but if you limp, you'll have 8 or 9 callers, what do you do with hands like A-X suited? And I want to see the flop with for 9 SB's with pocket 6's, not for 4 SB's that are just me and one guy.

Limp sometimes -- it's fine.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[/ QUOTE ]

That's really bad advice.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully I don't insult people on this board who constantly give this advice, but one of the things I read often that I find to be untrue is this:

"Never limp."

In poker, there is always reason to mix up your game and to do certain things at certain times for certain reasons.

If you're at a table in early position where you know if you raise, most will fold, but if you limp, you'll have 8 or 9 callers, what do you do with hands like A-X suited? And I want to see the flop with for 9 SB's with pocket 6's, not for 4 SB's that are just me and one guy.

Limp sometimes -- it's fine.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[/ QUOTE ]

That's really bad advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it is good advice. Limping is sometimes a good idea, depending on the quality of your opponents. It is sometimes a horrible idea, depending on the quality of your opponents. For example, in HPFAP, Sklansky and Malmuth suggest not raising with AQ offsuit.

P.S. Try giving a reason for why you think that is bad advice.

[TheHenchmen]

I agree with the notion that, first and foremost, mixing up your play is a major key to success (assuming your opposition is observant enough to notice). Thus, you should never, never, never ALWAYS do anything. I could elaborate for paragraphs.... but it would only be things we all already know. There's so much to think about at the poker table that I like to keep things simple, and that's about as simple as it gets. Sometimes you limp, sometimes you raise, depending on what your primary concern is to give you the best chance of dragging some chips.
Yada, yada, yada.... Mix up your play. Bottom line.