why is limping so bad?

i thought there were plenty of times when limping was correct. but it seems like the majority hate it.
how does limping change as games change (NL and limit)?

[2ndGoat]

Three main reasons:
-If you have a hand that figures to make money, then it figures to make more money if you get more of it in. Yes, sometimes your hand might do better in a multiway pot, but this is generally only true if the people who would limp behind you play poorly. Otherwise you're just giving away position.
-You don't want the blinds to come along free or cheap. It's just not good business. Unless you've got a monster. How much of a monster differes between limit and no-limit. In limit there's not much more than AA/KK that is really despondent about winning the blinds. In no limit the blinds are a little less crucial.
-Always raising gives away no information about your hand, compared to raising your best hands and folding your worst (or the opposite). While in an occasional circumstance you might be better off limping with AA, if that's the only thing you limped with, an observant opponent would know to stay the hell away. Even a semi-observant opponent will probably feel uneasy when you limp.

2nd

you also gain no information about your opponents holdings, making the rest of the hand difficult to play when you catch only a small piece of the flop

[SunOfBeach]

obviously there are exceptions, but the number one reason to not limp is becasue there's no folding equity to a limp.

limping in NL Holdem is not too bad during very early levels of blinds and from good positions. But as soon as the blinds get to a good level, raising pre flop or folding are really the best two options. I see so many players continue to limp in from early positions when the blinds are high, then have to fold when someone raises. Remember, if your hand is good enough to play at all, then you should bring it in for a raise. If you hold something like 6-6 and raise then the flop comes 6-4-2 you must be in front.....if you limp in, 5-3 off suit is just the sort of junk the BB will be holding and will probably bust you !
In limit your raise can't be large enough to force out all or most players pre flop so limping in is more common and you have to play more flops, turns etc. Bluffing is also very tough as a call on the end with a reasonable holding will often be the value play due to pot odds.

[UVaHoo]

There's a difference between tournaments and NL cash games. Basically, I like to vary my play based on how the table is playing. How many people have entered the pot? If 5 people have entered and I have AA, limping is unlikely to be a smart play. If I'm first in in the CO and I have 88, I'm going to open-raise in a cash game. If I'm 6th in in the CO with 88, I'm probably going to limp and hope to get paid off when I hit my set.

In cash games, it depends on what you want to get from your hand. Does it have good heads-up value? Does it play better multiway? Use your preflop actions to manipulate the field to a size of your liking.

IMO, the limps people on this board hate are when someone has KJs in the cutoff and open-limps, because you have an unmade hand that doesn't really want the blinds to see a cheap flop. Why not try to steal the blinds with it? You have a good hand with position if you're called. No one is going to blast you for limping 56s after 4 other limpers.

[BillsChips]

I have a similar question about limping. I'm a live limit player who has been playing 1/2 NL for the last few months. I'd rather play limit but for various reasons have no choice. Anyway, I've done ok, but not as good as some. My sample is very small, only about 10 sessions, but it seems that the winning players play nearly any two cards if they can see a flop for $2-10. I've been basically playing my limit game and folding most hands. Harrington says that when the blinds are small relative to the betting that you should play tightly. I think in these small-stakes NL games the opposite is true. If you hit the flop big with 7,8 off, the implied odds are huge. Do you think there's merit to this or am I just being results oriented?

[cpk]

I'll take the counter side:

- Open-raising kills certain types of games. People tighten up, and get defensive. However, the same players will loosen up to limps in front of them, and they will play inferior hands. You can exploit that by open-limping with marginal hands.

- Say you have a marginal hand like AJo in EP. If you limp, you might get 2 limpers plus the blinds, all with inferior hands. If you raise, you'll get no play from these hands, but you might get isolated by someone whose hand figures to be better than yours. If you end up being dominated, you'd prefer to be out only 2 bets instead of three.

- Marginal hands playable in EP and MP usually benefit from more action. You don't mind letting the blinds tag along.

- In softer games--especially live--people aren't paying attention to how you play to begin with, so you really aren't giving up much by giving away information by sometimes limping and sometimes raising.

That said, in a tougher game I am dropping my most marginal holdings from consideration and reverting to open-raising. Another possibility is to use a system of limp-reraising and open raising that totally confuses your opponents. Either technique avoids the information leakage that can hurt you in a tougher game.

[ohnonotthat]

They say you won't get much action if you don't give some but that is not meant to suggest you should be the one "hosting the party".

There are quite a few hands you can splash around with even in raised pots but even with the tiny blind structure of NL if you do too much splashing you'll wind up having re-bought 3 or 4 times before you finally drag that monster pot.

*

With one and two dollar blinds, playing 8-7/s for $10 is correct only if the following conditions are met . . .

1. You and all (or at least most) of those who take the flop with you have at least a few hundred on the table.

2. They don't have to be calling stations but they must not be afraid to call a large bet.

3. Your call closes the action OR there is nobody other than the blinds left to act.

- If the there is a limper (or two) and then a raise you face the danger of a limp/reraise; if UTG raises and gets a few callers your hand is still marginal at best if you're not the button. Your fear is not so much a raise from your left as it is a CALL from your left - and having to act before the caller for the remainder of the hand.

*

If these two conditions are met this hand becomes playable - even for a 4xBB raise - but hardly spectacular.

You are seldom going to flop a made hand or a HUGE draw and will often be priced out of the pot on the flop or turn when you flop a weak draw such as a gutshot or an open-ender with two to a suit (not your suit) on board.

*

Change the hand in question from a suited-connector to a pocket pair - even deuces - and you'd have a hand that plays well in this situation . . . 1-2 blinds, raised to 10, with a few other callers.

However, if you do flop your set, be sure to remember to price the drawing hands out of the pot on the flop; in other words, do to them what you do not want done to you with the 8-7/s from above.

*

Now, to sum that all up in one sentence:

If you see players calling 10 cold routinely they are playing poorly; the fact that it has worked for them over the course of the ten sessions you've been in the game means little or nothing - if they continue they'll go broke.

*

I hope that helped.