Punishing limpers

[pzhon]

Online NL £200, 10-handed.

Hero is BB, with a 17.5 BB short stack.
The rest of the table has at 30-160 BB. I've played for one orbit, and the table seems loose preflop, with a lot of underbets postflop.

Preflop:
CO posts 1+0.5 BB.
UTG calls, 2 folds, MP1 calls, fold, MP3 calls, CO checks, fold, SB completes, Hero raises to 17.5 BB (all-in).

With which hands will people call in each position? If I haven't looked at my cards, what is the probability someone will call?

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Online NL £200, 10-handed.

Hero is BB, with a 17.5 BB short stack.
The rest of the table has at 30-160 BB. I've played for one orbit, and the table seems loose preflop, with a lot of underbets postflop.

Preflop:
CO posts 1+0.5 BB.
UTG calls, 2 folds, MP1 calls, fold, MP3 calls, CO checks, fold, SB completes, Hero raises to 17.5 BB (all-in).

[/ QUOTE ]
Everyone folded. Hero wins 6.5 BB with Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].

I was disappointed not to see any comments. This type of push is not common in cash games, where the stacks are usually too deep to make it profitable. It is much more common in tournaments. Indeed, some people feel that in a SNG (say with 10 BB stacks), it is quite profitable to push with any two from the BB if no one raises. Few people feel comfortable calling such a push with a limping hand, particularly if they are not last to act. Being able to push like this, without paying too much if someone was trapping or makes a big call, is one of the advantages of having a short stack.

I risked 16.5 BB to gain about 6 BB (counting my equity if I check to be about 0.5 BB). If this were a pure bluff, I would be happy if I were to get called up to 27% of the time.

This is a semi-bluff. If I do get called, I retain some winning chances. Suppose I'll get called by any pair, AK, AQs, and KQs, and for simplicity, assume these are all equally likely. I win 31% of the time against this range. When that happens, I expect to get back 12.4 BB for my 16.5 BB investment, so I regret pushing by 4.1+0.5 BB. Thus, I'm happy to push if I get called less than 57% of the time.

I think the chance of getting called was under 30%. The last people to act are the CO, who posted, and the small blind. The push should be very profitable on average, worth about 3 BB. If that 30% estimate is correct, it would be right to push with 32o.

[AllIn3High]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Online NL £200, 10-handed.

Hero is BB, with a 17.5 BB short stack.
The rest of the table has at 30-160 BB. I've played for one orbit, and the table seems loose preflop, with a lot of underbets postflop.

Preflop:
CO posts 1+0.5 BB.
UTG calls, 2 folds, MP1 calls, fold, MP3 calls, CO checks, fold, SB completes, Hero raises to 17.5 BB (all-in).

[/ QUOTE ]
Everyone folded. Hero wins 6.5 BB with Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].

I was disappointed not to see any comments. This type of push is not common in cash games, where the stacks are usually too deep to make it profitable. It is much more common in tournaments. Indeed, some people feel that in a SNG (say with 10 BB stacks), it is quite profitable to push with any two from the BB if no one raises. Few people feel comfortable calling such a push with a limping hand, particularly if they are not last to act. Being able to push like this, without paying too much if someone was trapping or makes a big call, is one of the advantages of having a short stack.

I risked 16.5 BB to gain about 6 BB (counting my equity if I check to be about 0.5 BB). If this were a pure bluff, I would be happy if I were to get called up to 27% of the time.

This is a semi-bluff. If I do get called, I retain some winning chances. Suppose I'll get called by any pair, AK, AQs, and KQs, and for simplicity, assume these are all equally likely. I win 31% of the time against this range. When that happens, I expect to get back 12.4 BB for my 16.5 BB investment, so I regret pushing by 4.1+0.5 BB. Thus, I'm happy to push if I get called less than 57% of the time.

I think the chance of getting called was under 30%. The last people to act are the CO, who posted, and the small blind. The push should be very profitable on average, worth about 3 BB. If that 30% estimate is correct, it would be right to push with 32o.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless UTG was going for a limp-reraise, SB was playing JJ/AK/AQ timidly or someone feels like gamb00ling I don't think you're getting called very often.

But don't you think you think you would make more profit in this game if you bought in for more and out-played them post-flop? You don't sound like you're a novice, and by your desciption the game should be profitable.

[Nathan183]

What do you do, sit down, wait for some limpers then hit-and-run and move on to another table?

You can't do this more than once or twice, and buying in that short is terrible in general. I can't see this being a good strategy.

[ginko]

I think it's just a way to make back what he loses in blinds.. its not his "strategy". Just a way to pick up some change until AA come by..

[theben]

i dont know the chance you'll get called, theres no real way for me to tell you this. but if you are against ok players, expect to be definetly called by JJ+ and AK, as well as TT probably and maybe 99 and AQ

[Nathan183]

But it relies on being short stacked, which is not good. You don't want to have 10BB when you get those aces.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The push should be very profitable on average, worth about 3 BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

But don't you think you think you would make more profit in this game if you bought in for more and out-played them post-flop?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think I could outplay my opponents worth 3 BB postflop with garbage in the big blind. I don't think anyone else can, either.

Contrary to popular belief, being a short stack is an intrinsic advantage. Maybe it would be worth it to give up this advantage to try to outplay people more postflop, but that shouldn't be obvious.

Here, I thought a short stack was the most profitable way to play because of a combination of two factors:
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] I could punish the loose limpers by stealing the limps or value betting, and
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] My connection was flaky.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont know the chance you'll get called, theres no real way for me to tell you this. but if you are against ok players, expect to be definetly called by JJ+ and AK, as well as TT probably and maybe 99 and AQ

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, with what probability do you think people would limp with those hands? Do you think people will call with worse?

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you do, sit down, wait for some limpers then hit-and-run and move on to another table?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't do that, but maybe it would be profitable.

[ QUOTE ]

You can't do this more than once or twice,


[/ QUOTE ]
My first push may be anything, including a strong hand. I take into account the possibility someone will make a big call on my second push, so I tighten up a lot on my second push. I've often doubled up with something like QQ vs. KQ or AA vs. 88 on my second push.

There was a big discussion of the strategy of pushing from the BB with any two in the SNG forum. (It is very common for the stacks to be about 10 BB in a tournament.) Some winning players do this, but people are very averse to calling them with a hand like 55, even though there is a good chance it is not a coin-toss. I doubt most cash game players have thought about how exploitable it is to limp in front of a short stack, which is why I posted here.

[ QUOTE ]
and buying in that short is terrible in general.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you are wrong. It's unfashionable. It really annoys some people who associate short stacks with bad play. However, buying in short is a reasonable strategy, particularly if you know how to use a short stack well, which I believe I do. I also know how to play with a deep stack, but I don't always want to do that.

I'll add that I'm overbankrolled for NL £200. I'm not trying to minimize variance.