Is "implied limping" a valid concept.

[stigmata]

Was just thinking about this whilst going through a run of ultra-boring cards.

The concept of “implied limping”: The theory that an early limp will have the dual effect of A) encouraging limpers and B) discouraging later raises.

To illustrate the point, lets take a look at a an example hand.

Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (10 handed). Assume all players are fundamentally OK. Their hole cars are listed below, with "--" indicating the cards are unplayable and therefore ignored:

UTG: --
UTG1: 55
MP1: --
MP2: 22
MP3: --
MP4: --
CO: JTs
But: ATo
SB: 85s
BB: --


Scenario 1

The game has been rather tight for the last couple of orbits. UTG1 decides he does not have implied odds for the set and folds. MP2 fears a raise behind, and therefore folds. CO attempts a risky blind steal with JTs. The button respects CO’s raises, and decides to fold his likely-dominated hand.

Both blinds fold and CO wins the pot with JTs

UTG1 congratulates himself on his excellent poker predictions skills, and is glad he didn’t limp in with 55, only to get raised behind.

Scenario 2

The game has been slightly loose for the last couple of orbits. UTG1 decides that there are going to be two or three limpers behind, and will get implied odds on making a set. After UTG1 limps, MP2 decides that he will get one or two more people coming in, and also limps in for set value. CO limps in, as does the button, and small blind completes.

UTG1 congratulates himself on his excellent poker prediction skills, as he got enough limpers to give him implied odds on making his set. [Furthermore, the flop comes A52 and he wins his biggest pot of the night].


So the illustration shows that with certain (fairly typical) card distributions, a limp (or two) in early position will encourage further limpers and discourage raises. In fact, I think this is even more applicable to 6-max tables, where you essentially have 2 early positions and 2 late positions. On some tables, if the early players fold, you can almost guarantee an attempted blind steal.


So this is all just theoretical – how useful is it as a concept in poker? If you are at a table that is giving you a borderline call/fold situation in early position, your call may encourage the type of hand to make the call profitable. But by how much? I guess to really validate it as a concept, you would need to quantify how much limping encourages limpers and discourages raises. I figure these values are probably lower than 1 (perhaps in the 0.5 range?), which on some tables could swing a fold to a call situation. However my estimate is a wild guess, any better ideas?

To be honest though, I think that at best, this theory is just an excuse for me to play a few more hands when I am going through a run of ultra-boring cards!!! Probably why I thought of it….

Anyway, though I would open it for discussion, if anyone had any thoughts on it, or please feel free to rubbish it, if you feel that way...

[daveymck]

I dont know about the term implied limping but I would say its more down to table evaluation, if the game is loose passive then limping in with 55 utg and playing no set no bet is a touch loose for my standards but isnt really a mistake.

If the game has been loose agressive or tight passive I would be folding not looking to limp hoping to get other limpers, in those situations if you are planning on playing fives open raising is better than open limping.

More limpers generally encourages more callers but I dont think in agressive games it discourages later raisers.

I dont think its useful as a concept as I would make the borderline decisions based on table texture than this theory.

If you want to play more hands I would go for the theory of adding another table and playing more premium hands than looking for reasons to play marginal hands on your current tables.

[stigmata]

Sure, I wasnt putting much weight on my own ramblings.... Saying it was an excuse to play more cards was more of a joke than anything, and I'm happy with my play in that respect. The post wasnt really about that.

Table texture is obviously more important.

I also forgot to mention the post wasn't about how to play this-or-that hand in this-or-that position. It was the first example that came into my mind, and not neccessarily how I would advise playing it.


I Was just interested in this "cascade effect", and how it may relate to table texture. E.g. limping will encourage limping in that hand, AND also in later hands. You know when you go through periods in the same table where you have a few orbits are tight, then a few orbits are loose. Chiefly this is due to the cards being dealt, but I am sure part of it is also pyschological. If everybody at the table is evaluating "how many are to the flop?" with many hands, then the psychology of table texture must be of some relevance and linked to "implied limping"


This isnt something that I had seen mentioned before, and I think to some (small and arguable) extent it does happen.

[Absolution]

I agree here. My first reaction was that limping definitely does not discourage raisers. It might actually encourage it against aggressive opponents and will actually result in them needing to raise another BB for every limp. I would say don't fall into the limp/min-raise game that so many weak players resort to unless your table is really that loose/passive.

[daveymck]

I am sure it is partly psycological people see lots of people in the pot so maybe call loose on later hands, not saying its not a valid concept but I dont see how you can measure it or use it to your own advantage.

[stigmata]

OK agreed - I dont think its a particularly useful concept, but I guess it does exist at some level. It is quantifiable using a PT database if you have some database skills. E.g.

(Av. No. of limpers after a limp UTG) - (Av. No. of limpers)

The number would surely be too small to influence starting hand requirements, but I would be interested to see it quantified.

Interesting to see the comments arguing that limping in EP makes a raise more likely. I can see how this would be the case with NL (not that I have much experience) - i'm not sure about limit, but you may well be correct.

[deadsoon]

Early position limpers do in fact encourage more people to limp. You get in trouble however when you assume you'll get a 6-way pot, limp in in EP, but instead get isolated by an aggressive player while you are out of position.

Your theory is correct, but it will probably get you into trouble.

[GvegasTiger]

Does limping mean just calling the BB? I'm not familiar with this term, or most terms on here.

[stigmata]

Yes, it means just calling the big blind.

Try this for future reference:
http://www.wedoitallvegas.com/Poker_...oker_Terms.asp

welcome aboard!

[GvegasTiger]

Thanks for the link. That helps.