Punishing limpers

[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..

[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 ]
You don't want to have 10BB when you get those aces.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't want to have more than 10 BB when someone else has AA. Every time someone wins because he has a deep stack, someone else is losing because he has a deep stack. The wins are more vivid, and someone always mentions value-betting the nuts in these discussions, but the losses overbalance the wins whether you notice the losses or not.

[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.

[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

[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?

[theben]

i can't really say a probabilty that somebody would limp with a certain hand, because its player, game, and site dependant. its also hard to say if how many people actually call with worse, because that too depends on where and who you are playing. sorry i can't cough up a number but any number i give would be me BSing a very inaccurate approximation.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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?

[/ QUOTE ]
i can't really say a probabilty that somebody would limp with a certain hand, because its player, game, and site dependant. its also hard to say if how many people actually call with worse, because that too depends on where and who you are playing. sorry i can't cough up a number

[/ QUOTE ]
The point is not to come up with a number.

I'm not looking for a cop-out like, "It depends." I had been at the table for an orbit, so I didn't have detailed reads on everyone, either. Nevertheless, I made a decision I'm confident was +EV by a lot.

I asked to point out that it is relatively unlikely for someone to have limped with a big enough hand to make this a comfortable call. To defend yourself from someone who is willing to raise every time you show weakness, you need to lower your calling standards, trap frequently, or stop limping.

[teamdonkey]

i think this is fine as long as UTG isn't a donkey. Although asking for input on this forum is a little odd, 95% of the posters here never have a stack that small.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
i think this is fine as long as UTG isn't a donkey.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why you think UTG would have to be a donkey to make this a dangerous play. I usually limp UTG with JJ and AQ, and I would limp-reraise over a short-stack's push with both of those hands if there were several limpers beind me. I sometimes limp with AA and AK UTG, too, more as I play for higher stakes. (Of course, some people call me a donkey, but I console myself by rolling around in large piles of money won playing poker in ways that make sense to me, but not my opponents.)

I think the real donkey-play would be to limp with a low pair like 44, then put me on AK and call a push. I'm not so worried about this with Q7, but I suppose it is an argument for not having a low card in my hand when I make this push.

[ QUOTE ]

Although asking for input on this forum is a little odd, 95% of the posters here never have a stack that small.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't really posting for information. I posted it for discussion, since I thought this was an interesting hand. It illustrates an advantage of a short stack few cash game players have considered carefully.

I think many people have had a stack this short after losing a big pot. It may be that instead of thinking about how to play with a short stack well, they immediately reload.